Low level syndrome in BR

[epicsoul]

This was inspired partly by the discussions also had in the scion class question thread of mine, as well as the Portraying Bloodline thread.

Here's something I have noticed from most of the posters in this forum:
1. That most seem to agree that BR was designed as a campaign world that favours low level to mid-level play - high level tends to drastically alter the setting. Example - out of all printed material, the highest level "good guy" that comes to mind is Aelies. There are obviously a few Awnshegh that are vastly epic level, but most are in the mid to high level range, and thus, not too unbalancing.
2. That the scion class, as well as other classes, are possibly disproportionate in balance, due to their effects on both low level, and later, high level, play (the rationale of losing some 9th level spells in order to have your scion class). This is due to setting specific material.
3. Further to 2, due to the low magic setting, or, based on your view point of what "low magic" means (perhaps magic item rare, but again, there is disagreement) CR levels are altered substantially as compared to 3.5e, altering how challenges can be accurately assessed.
4. Something I have brought up a bit before - at highest levels, D&D is designed for characters to singlehandedly annihilate armies (or even populaces!), thus making the BRCS system for war units... not the most effective. This doesn't even start including realm magic, but just say... repeated hammering of a place with meteor strikes, cloudkills and fireballs/delayed blast fireballs. Or a 20th level fighter who can mop the floor with 200 3rd level fighters as they kill 2 or 3 a round... and the 3rds can't even hit the 20th level fighter, except with 20s - If even...
5. That by most gaming group's very nature, gaming past 12th level is rare, as groups tend to either become bored, fall apart, or, in BR, achieve many of their goals due to their abilities by that time (after all, even Darien Avan is only 12th level). Sure, they may not have fought the Gorgon, but Roesone sure is safe now from any of their enemies...

Now. There are probably a few other reasons why low level syndrome is so prevalent in BR, as compared to say, high level FR, or that new-fangled Eberron thingie (which I have only read a bit about, so I could be talking out my ass). Perhaps even the old published material itself is to blame - there was really nothing published other than the Big G, plus a dragon or 2, that would easily map over as epic. And too many changes to the setting for this drastically alters the power balance. Sure, you could make almost all the domain rulers epic level instead, but if so, you would think things would be at least a bit more dynamic, and then, you really stomp on any new ruler's (often, the PCs) realistic chances.

So. Here's a radical suggestion I am proposing, and something I will be trying to encourage in my next campaign. It's not something you see very often in 3e, or at least, in my games (so, bear with me, cuz I could be wrong).

Rampant multi-classing. By encouraging this, the power level doesn't get too out of control, the scion class doesn't become something annoying, AND, the person who focuses on a spell casting class doesn't fall too far behind. So, this would be more focused towards the fighter/rogue types, who would essentially take levels in both, or possibly a few noble levels as well.

Suddenly, the power level difference diminishes drastically - not to mention the possible xp penalties that will slow level progression, and thus allow for a longer, richer game (of course, I already vastly reduce the xp income of my players, but that's something I choose to do, not necessarily backed by rules). Now, the prob is, encouraging the players to do so - so obviously, just appealing to their ego for the good of the story may not work - every group usually has at least one power gamer, after all. So, what to do to encourage? And, is this viable?

Clearly, a 2nd level noble/2ftr/2 rogue/1 scion is a lot weaker than a 6ftr/1 scion. Sure, their saves are good and they have lots of lower level abilities, but, as is noted, they don't have a lot of specialties. And yeah, you can munchkin a bit - make sure to take the rogue class first for the skill points, or some such (though, that's difficult without taking both scion and noble first! - requires other rules, such as in Savage Species, which I am not familiar with - let's avoid that discussion here). However, at war, and in personal combat, the 6ftr will probably win. The multi-classer would have to work to bring all their skills to bear, from all classes, to really have an even fight.

I think what I am proposing is to encourage NON-specialization (or single-classing) of non-spellcasting characters in BR. Doing so brings back flavour, balance, the usefullness of the scion class, and could promote higher level play.

It would mean that some common multi-class combos would erupt:
Anuireans with ftr/cleric
Brecht ftr/rogues
Rjurik ranger/druid or ranger/rogue or ranger/ftr, ranger/bard (how can you tell I like Rjurik characters...?)
Khinasi fighter or rogue +magician/sorceror/wizard
Vos barbarian/fighter
maybe elven figher/magicusers would come back in vogue again
halfling ftr/rogue
dwarven ftr/clerics

And yeah, those are stereotypes - plus I am ignoring prestige classes, which essentially also multi-classes a character, and thus, could also assist with my point (although some are grossly overpowered for my purposes). But, encouraging these, plus then bringing in a scion level or two, plus noble levels, suddenly vastly cuts back on the imbalancing effect a 20th level character can have on such a game world as Cerilia. Heck, if you wanna, include spellcasting classes in this too. A 20th level ftr 10/wiz 10 is way less powerful in obliterating entire armies than a 20th level single class is... and, when they do achieve epic level, they won't get lots of epic feats. That spell caster will never have their 9th level spells without focusing on their class into their epic levels... and maybe that should be the case. Make those spell casters out there work to earn their spells. Make it so that their 5th level magic, at 10d6 (which still can kill units!) is rare, and they can't do it so often.

I could be wrong, of course. And, there are obvious weaknesses here, such as the question of how to encourage. Another is that I am going too far into balancing questions, and further, now unbalance spell casters in the opposite direction - even with a scion level or 2!

Comments?

[kgauck]

There are issues of play style here, because I regard the 2 noble/2 fighter/ 2 rogue/ 1 scion as a more powerful character than the 6 fighter/1 scion.

How many different roles is a character expected to fulfil during an adventure? Are tasks so varried that a one-trick-pony, like the 6 fighter, is useless 9 times out of 10, and really useful 1 time in 10?

If I expect a fighter-type guy, lets call him the count of Cwlldon in Mhoried, to be a warrior when confronting ogres, a courtier in society, a leader before the people, an administrator before his council, a skilled hunter when out with the boys, a soldier in the field, and so on, and the consequences for failing any of these tasks is bad, perhaps all equally bad, then no one class is suitable to do it all.

The fighter can do two of those things well, can probabaly do another two poorly, and has no basis for claiming any skill in two others. Likewise the rogue. The noble might claim to do all of these things marginally well. If I felt I needed the skills, and couldn't abandon the fighter role, I'd indeed go with the 2/2/2 character. Otherwise I might go with a noble 3/fighter 3, or more typicaly, noble 4/fighter 2, depending on how much fighting I needed to do.

[Mantyluoto]

and don't forget that 2nd ed D&D level progression was harder than 3rd ed. So most characters advanced slower hence the reason for more low level regents.

If you use the experience set out in the new DMG it wont take long for a good sized party to fly up the levels making most of the realms regents underpowered and basically a waste of time.

[gazza666]

I forsee many issues with this.

Let's get issue one out of the way right at the start: clearly, if you go with "weak multiclassing" (as in: multiclassing to the point of creating mechanically weak characters), then the DM is going to have to work harder to make balanced encounters. I mention this only in passing - not because it's unimportant, but because it's been mentioned before in other contexts (eg low magic).

The second issue is that specialisation encourages teamwork. Regent PCs already are somewhat difficult to convince to work together; if every PC can do a bit of fighting, a bit of spellcasting, and a bit of roguery, then it becomes even harder to convince them to work together.

Thirdly, how would one encourage this, exactly? It seems as if you're not even proposing getting rid of multiclassing XP penalties. There's certainly no reason from a power perspective to do it, and even roleplayers who would never consider anything in powergaming terms may blanch at having such an unfocussed character. You could do something such as say that you couldn't have a spellcasting level as your highest level class, but that's a bit tricky as well if prestige classes are allowed.

I'm not really convinced that the end result is a better match for the setting in any case.

[geeman]

When it comes to "low level syndrome" I think we have to go back even
further than the rules BR first appeared in. It`s back into Advanced
Dungeons & Dragons that the "syndrome" has its rules. Way back in
those days there was the rudiments of a domain system. It used hex
grids and assumed a truly massive amount of gold expenditure for PCs
to become rulers. There was lots of information written into the DMG
about "kingdoms" and information about how much money a character
could expect to collect in taxes written right into every single
character class. All this seemed to assume that all characters
would, naturally, wind up in some sort of leadership position.

The flipside of all that, however, was there were level restrictions
on such things. It was assumed that characters had to reach their
"name level" (which was 9th to 12th or so depending on class) before
he could "settle down" to rule a realm. A character could own a
castle before he reached name level, but for some inexplicable reason
his influence was not recognized until that time, so he collected no
income from the lands he oversaw.

Ruling a realm did not really mean "settling down" though. In fact,
the cost of paying for a castle`s construction, maintenance,
retainers, etc. were all presented as a possible method of draining a
PCs coffers, and motivating him/er to participate in adventures. It
turned the system of rulership into a kind of vanity project for PCs.

When BR first came along it corrected many of those issues. It did
away with the character level requirement of rulership. You could be
a "boy-king" in BR and characters could inherit a realm far before
the earlier editions of D&D would assume s/he were "ready." In
almost every way that is a much more playable way of setting up the
system. Heirs are often not ready for their jobs. Kings are
sometimes (probably more often than not) powerful in title only.

Perhaps the setting even went a bit too far the other way. Older
characters who are described in ways that would indicate they have
been experienced in the ways of the world and adventuring are given
only a few character levels. The setting`s most powerful creatures
are often not very strong when compared to other D&D settings. Given
the background of the setting in which the gods themselves appeared
to do battle directly with one another one could justify a high level
campaign pretty easily.

But other realities of D&D make that difficult. As has been pointed
out, what purpose a small kingdom in D&D when a high level character
can wipe out units even whole populations with the magics presented
in the base system? Why would characters really seek to rule at all
given the particulars of the domain level? It is no longer a vanity
project as it was in 1e. It`s an actual occupation that takes up a
serious amount of time, and from the D&D standpoint the character is
probably not at all more powerful than he would be if he dedicated
the same amount of time and effort to straight adventuring.

The closest thing to an answer for either of those problems is to
make the setting a "low-level" one. In reality, it`s probably not
the best solution possible. In many ways the setting cries out for
an entirely different set of rules. But given the rules that it was
under that`s the simplest solution.

Gary

[Green Knight]

The RPG for A game of Thrones offers such a system (there was thread on this a while back).

It is recognizeable d20, which for a lot of people should be a selling point, while also (to some extent at least) mitigating the problem of high-lvl characters interecting with a predominantly low-lvl world.

A shame that it is not accompanied with a useful magic system; that is its biggest flaw IMO, requiring quite some work for the DM to adapt.

[Mantyluoto]

just a note about the "A Game of Thrones" RPG. Guardians of Order, who released it have gone out of business. see www.guardiansorder.com for details.

[irdeggman]

and don't forget that 2nd ed D&D level progression was harder than 3rd ed. So most characters advanced slower hence the reason for more low level regents.

If you use the experience set out in the new DMG it wont take long for a good sized party to fly up the levels making most of the realms regents underpowered and basically a waste of time.

Actually the statement and assumption that level advancement is quicker in 3.5 than it was in 2nd ed is really a false one.

It depends on the comparison being made since in 2nd ed all classes had their own xp advancement tables and if using the class specific xp awards (the PHB said they weren't optional while the DMG said they were).

When comparing fighter to fighter between editions, the 3.5 one advances quicker in any case I can come up with (even with class specific awards from 2nd ed).

When comparing thief to rogue the thief always advances quicker (even without the class specific awards of 2nd ed that have them advance at unbeleivably quick rates - I mean 5 xp/1 gp of treasure and 200 xp per use of class ability combined with the quickest advancement tables of all).

Wizards in 2nd ed had a strange advancement system - slow at low levels, fast at mid levels and slow again at high levels. Class specific awards, IIRC, 100 xp/spell level cast.

Clerics had a pretty quick advancement table, 2nd only to thieves and their class specific awards helped them a lot.

[irdeggman]

Clearly, a 2nd level noble/2ftr/2 rogue/1 scion is a lot weaker than a 6ftr/1 scion.

It depends on the level of play.

For a combat heavy game then yes, but for a domain level heavy game the 2noble/2ftr/1scion is clearly superior due to the number of skills (and skill points) and domain level benfits.

[Blackfrost]

Quote:
Originally Posted by epicsoul
...Or a 20th level fighter who can mop the floor with 200 3rd level fighters as they kill 2 or 3 a round... and the 3rds can't even hit the 20th level fighter, except with 20s - If even...

I've always felt that the combat system utilized by the the D&D system (AD&D 2nd addition, D20, etc) is somewhat imbalanced.

Our group was puting together a combat system based off of the Conan D20 RPG put out by Mongoose publishing.

If you are not familiar with it, this system uses " Dodge" bonuses (DEX based - but also determined by class) and "Parry" bonuses. (STR based - but also determined by class) The results are as high in most cases but they can always be adjusted by making the class dodge/parry bonuses lower or higher.

Armor provides no bonus to an individuals "AC" but instead grants a damage reduction bonus. (though most melee weapons have an armor piercing value that helps combat this)

Anyway, just putting in my two cents concerning the combat system. (my apologies!!!)

[Green Knight]

No reason to appologize.

The heart of the DnD system IS (arguably) the combat system. And the combat system is tied closely to the CR system and the treasure-reward system.

The end result being that PCs are supposed to face opponents of reasonaby similar power levels. We're talking +/- 2 CRs or so most of the time. Anything beyond +/- 4 CRs and the DMG warns that this is either a PC killer or a walkover.

Furthermore, the system of CRs include a mechanism of comparing the CR of groups of monsters as well, but admits that it breaks down for very large groups of weak monsters facing individually much more powerful opponents.

So, by design, the system admitts to being ill suited for asymetric challenges...a party of 15-20th lvl characters cannot be reasonably challenged by any group of weak monsters.

So, if common soldiers have a level or two of warrior, and the rest of the world's common challenges are scaled accordinly the result is pretty obvious - a low-level campaign is REQUIRED.

[Sigmund]

Since the CR system of BR is already kinda off, and the setting's npcs were published as lower level to start, has anyone considered including, as either official or optional, a combat system like Grim 'N Gritty for the BR setting. It would truely level the battle field combat prowess-wise as even low level characters have a reasonable chance of defeating high level opponents. In case anyone is not familiar with it, it does have it's downsides. In the campaign I'm playing in right now we are using it and I can tell ya it really is challenging...creatures larger than medium size especially are very difficult to defeat. It uses a damage track (so no character or creature of any level has more or less than 25 HPs), active defense rolls in place of static ACs as the to-hit target numbers (defense is your dodge ability using dex and such), and "soak", which is basically damage reduction calculated using con, armor, and such. There are different versions of the GnG system, I know True20 uses what seems to be a system loosely derived from it.

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/13/06, Sigmund <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> Since the CR system of BR is already kinda off, and the setting`s npcs were published as
> lower level to start, has anyone considered including, as either official or optional, a
> combat system like Grim `N Gritty for the BR setting.

No. Birthright is a D&D setting. The design goal is to hew as close
to that as possible, to make the setting usable for as many people as
possible. People that like G&G or Castles and Crusades or Grim Tales
or whatever are already sufficiently equipped to do with the setting
what they will.

--
Daniel McSorley

[kgauck]

re gritty combat, I find that using the alternate d20 system of wound and vitality produces a pretty good system where low level characters can get a critical and put any normal combatant into a state where they are dead, out for the count, or looking for the exit.

Take the example of the mighty PC against a unit of 1st or 2nd level warriors. Putting aside the question of whether the mighty PC is designed to be a giant killer (one great opponant) or a goblin killer (many small opponants) and select the latter, it still only takes a single critical hit from a goblin's spear to shift a PC from offense to defense.

I've seen plenty of characters go wading into an onslaught of Blood Skull goblins, cleaving their way to immortal glory, when a lucky shot from some unknown goblin whose name will never be sung, sends the PC falling back to the side of his allies where he can fight defensively and establish flanking bonuses and get the benefit from clerical aid if things get really dangerous.

They know full well that goblin captains can be rogues and often make for wounded human captains intending to flank, sneak attack them, and then put the character in line for a fatal blow.

The ogre who wacks you with a great club and gets a critical is an obvious possibility for a killing blow, but even three wounds from lucky goblins are generally fatal.

[Green Knight]

I think I'll present my "solution" to the problem:

1. If you want to stick with normal DnD rules + BRCS rules, I think that having most low-level characters should be the norm. Anything above 10th level is a MAJOR power.

2. If you're willing to change more rules, you could import some rules from UA (such as wound/vitality/DR from armor etc.) or use alternate systems (such a d20 G&G or the aforementioned A Game of Thrones). Requires a bit more work though.

The END result is pretty much the same - PCs (and NPCs) are NOT supposed to be all-powerful demi-gods that can walk over an army or small kingdom without breaking a sweat...

[maskmaker]

Hmm... maybe part of the problem is that we're kinda assuming that all the other regents/characters in BR are not levelling up and adventuring as much as the PCs? Why not, every so often, bump of the level of a wizard somewhere, so that when the PCs reach high level, their peers also have been progressing. Then there's no major change to the rules, but the setting is made slightly more realistic.

Only drawback to that, is that it might remove the limited magic feel. But then... magic should still be limited, it just means that Blah the Wizard King of Blahland doesn't just stay the same weak spellcaster. He advances in his arcane lore just the same as PCs.

That's one thought? :)

[Green Knight]

It is a solution, but one that quickly bings about an inflation of power levels. One this process is begun, the average level of NPCs throughout the setting WILL increase. Then we have a situation similar to, say FR, where important NPCs are all Epic level or so.

If we assume that only "exceptional" individuals, like PCs and major antagonist/protagonist NPCs are part of this inflation, it causes the problem described earlier - neither the PCs nor the NPCs really need their domain. They can rule the battlefield and raze small kingdoms on their own.

A related effect, but the most visual one, it that high-level magic-users have access to power that simply put are completely out of synch with the low-level feel of BR magic (BR is, IMO, not necessarilylow on the AMOUNT of magic, but the POWER of character level magic is not very high).

[irdeggman]

Hmm... maybe part of the problem is that we're kinda assuming that all the other regents/characters in BR are not levelling up and adventuring as much as the PCs? Why not, every so often, bump of the level of a wizard somewhere, so that when the PCs reach high level, their peers also have been progressing. Then there's no major change to the rules, but the setting is made slightly more realistic.


That's ticket.

Things shouldn't be "static".

I have always warned my players that what is written on the NPCs in the books is not necessarily what they will be like when you encounter them.

I had players who at character creation were plotting to kill the Gorgon and thought that their PC should be able to do that before too long.

[gazza666]

I had players who at character creation were plotting to kill the Gorgon and thought that their PC should be able to do that before too long.
Well, while I agree with the general sentiment of NPCs getting more powerful (I'll come back to that in a moment - hold that thought), I think the way that the Gorgon is portrayed, your players' expectation was not too unreasonable. It's "Elminster syndrome" again - if it's taken him that long to get to his current level of power, then if your players are advancing reasonably quickly (a level or so per year, say) they quite possibly should catch the big G up. If the big G suddenly starts ramping up his level as well, there is a reasonable question of why the sudden rush, after so many decades stagnation.

Now, getting back to the issue of NPCs getting more powerful - the only reason you'd even need to consider doing this is if you were using the setting pretty much as written. I know some people do that for Birthright, but I'm wondering if we're the only group that doesn't. When we play in the Forgotten Realms (which is only when the designated DM is feeling lazy, because it's not really a particularly interesting setting), we don't expect to encounter Driz'zt or Elminster. When we play Greyhawk, we don't expect to meet Iuz or Mordenkainen (well, actually, we've never played Greyhawk, but you get the point). There is no requirement to use all the creator's NPCs as your own; you can use most of the history and backstory of Birthright without using any of the rulers in the boxed set. (Indeed, since those haven't been "officially" ported to 3.5 yet - correct me if I'm wrong - you're pretty much going to have to make them up anyway, so why not take it one step further and come up with someone new?)

If you don't even use the published NPCs, then the players don't have any expectation of what the levels of their neighbouring rulers "should" be, so you can fudge to your heart's content (let's face it, it's not really important until it actually impacts the PCs in some way).

But to each his own; I do understand that for some people the NPCs are as much (or more) a part of the setting than bloodlines and awnshies are. Even then, though, I would imagine it's more the personality and flavour that is important rather than how many levels of fighter and what feats they have.

[maskmaker]

Hmm... I'm going to comment on this whole "razing kingdoms" and "destroying armies" lark. Whilst I can't really comment on the actual numbers of it, I understand yes, it is possible. But then, surely the DM can institute some storylines to discourage a PC from using "meteor meteor meteor" to blast apart everything in front of them.

Two examples I can think of:

1) The PC, by destroying so many people with such magic, has a direct, adverse affect on the mebhaigl. The land is becoming ill, and if the PC is not careful, the magical fabric of his domain may soon come undone.

2) The population of the nation live in fear of the PCs magic. Constant blasts of fire in the middle of battle, even when used for the kingdom are not conducive to a peaceful enjoyment of the rule.

I'm going to reach beyond D&D for the moment, to the "Wheel of Time" series. Now, Elayne, when she is besieged in Caemlyn, COULD technically have blasted most of the army apart with her magical powers. But she DIDN'T because if she won the country on her own with just her magic, then the people would turn against her.

What am I saying? Well, if people are terrified of mages growing far too powerful, just subtly remind the wizard-PCs that if they do get too trigger-happy with their spells, there are some more powerful wizards who will try to end the abuse of the magic. I mean, if your level 15 wizard has defeated invasion after invasion after invasion with meteor strike and fireballs and summoning of demons... there must be some IC repercussions. High Mage Aelies might name the PC an enemy for irresponsible spellcasting; an evil shade might seek the power of the PC for himself.

Now, wizard players might think, "But come on, I've got these spells, why can't I use them?" My thought has always been that Birthright wizards save such spells for the very rarest of occasion. Mechanics wise, yes, they can cast spells, but RPwise, they should be wary of summoning such magic. Maybe once, in order to swing the battle in the favour of the wizard, a single fireball can be flung against a knight unit about to flank the army... or whatever.

Does any of that make sense? I may have repeated myself a bit in this post, so sorry. I'm just trying to say that there are ways to explain to a PC why they can't use magic to solve all their problems.

Just another thought. :D

Edit: to answer another question, as to why a wizard would bother ruling a domain? / why would a high-level PC bother ruling a domain? Duty, loyalty... and it does give them extra prestige... and, with the arguments set out in my post, because they can't use magic for everything. ;) Even uber-powerful Elminster doesn't blast everything apart just because he can... and that's in uber-powerful omg-powerful-NPC-round-every-corner Forgotten Realms.

[kgauck]

I happily increased NPC's levels during the course of my BR campaigns. I generally tried to keep the xp gap about the same, not the number of levels. I could always figure what level an NPC should be by taking the printed data, or my conversion, assuming the minimum xp to possess the level, and adding what the players had (more or less). Siobhan Riedhie starts the game out at her printed as a 3rd level priest, though my conversion makes her a 2 noble/ 2 cleric. See her here. (http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/siobhan.htm) So I assume she has a 6 or 7000xp lead on the PC's. By the time they get to 3rd level, I bump her up to 5th level.

This does not lead to everyone becomming epic level however, because while the PC's have a certain amount of script protection (they can really ony die as a consequence of their actions), I can kill off NPC's to advance story lines, to create a sense of realism (NPC's can die in accidents, by disease, old age, or devious plots), or because I want to bring their heirs into the fore.

In my last campaign, the PC's started out as the sons of existing nobles. They could choose to be the eldest son, in line for the title, or they could be second sons, suitable for offices, but not in line for titles. I started out with a 1st or 2nd level version of most of the key figures in the campaign to interact with the PC's. They too had sons just like the PC's. Eventually, characters like Olfjor Ylvarrik died and one of his sons took his place.

So the NPC enviroment was managed, so that generally characters tended to increase in xp like the PC's. Often they advanced in political classes, like Thuriene Donalls, who gained levels in Dynasties and Demagogues Religious Leader class. Rivals tended to match power more closely with the PC's. A few characters, such as key henchmen, specialized more than the PC's did. Characters who gained levels in political classes, whether Noble (which is described on my site as Aristocrat), or one of the classes from Dynasties and Demagogues or Cityworks became more powerful in political spheres. They aquired political skills, often got promoted in their organziations, and had command over more resources. They became more politically formidable where NPC's who got combat oriented classes became more physically formidable.

Keeping track of xp gaps, rather than level gaps, combined with killing off NPC's whose time has past keeps the average level pretty reasonable.

Its also the case, and I think this makes perfect sense in BR, that after a time, players become just as concerned about the power of their organizations as they do their characters, and are eccepting of the fact that their characters grow slowly, because most of their efforts benefit their realms. Sure its been a while since PC Alan got a level, but he settled a new town, and that's as good as another hit die. He completed a fortification, despite attacks by hostile forces, that's as good as a BAB bonus. Because I didn't match CR to the players constantly, or rather tended to increase the challenge of an encounter with more low power opponants, two things happened. One is that the players started to look for groups of followers and subjects to throw at the enemy's masses. Second, they personally grew in power more slowly over time, because adding another hundred goblins to an invasion doesn't do much for the player's personal danger. What it really does is increase the danger to their realms. A village of 75 men, women, and children are helpless before 100 goblins with a level of rogue (on average). Even if 30 Commoner 4/Warrior 2 's don't drop like flies, their loss is a blow to any realm, and the loss of their village is a blow as well.

One clever strategy players developed (aside from shifting concern from PC power to realm power) was to cultivate lower level cohorts, lieutenants, and allies. Bringing little friends along often did far more to bring that 2nd level knight up to 3rd, without making a dent for the 10th level champion who brought him. Eventually, players had a stable of mid-level friends, allies, relatives, and vassals to send on errends, undertake missions, and otherwise use to advance their cause.

Again the effect here is to make it seem like the real action is in the middle levels for individual champions, and that high level characters run realms.

Players who missed the action were encouraged to cultivate new PC's, even their own heirs. More than a few PC's were retired to taking realm turns while their sons followed in their footsteps. And so we come full circle.

[tpdarkdraco]

I think that kgauck has some great points.

In campaign's that I have run over the years I haven't had any troubles with the Birthright setting. I keep the magic low by not handing out many magic items but give my players other rewards such as favours from people in power.

I haven't had players reach epic level yet but I believe if they did I would have plenty of challanges for them. It is all in how you DM the game. If I had a high level fighter wade into battle against a couple of hundred soldiers I can gaurantee that he would be overwelmed by the numbers.

If your players have powerfull characters then I would imagin that they would start to effect the world around them and perhaps be the next Emperor/Gorgon. Even though the gorgon is powerfull he is still kept in check.

I think it all comes down to the creativity of the DM and the use of common sense and a dash of reality.

[gazza666]

1) The PC, by destroying so many people with such magic, has a direct, adverse affect on the mebhaigl. The land is becoming ill, and if the PC is not careful, the magical fabric of his domain may soon come undone.
(and snip)

Forget wizards - what about fighters? Using Great Cleave or Whirlwind Attack, a high level fighter can murder armies on his own.

[kgauck]

Tactics is a game of rock-paper-scissors. If you have great cleave and wirlwind attack, then his enemy will send archers to defeat him. At Hastings, the Housecarls of Harold were experts in the use of the heavy bearded axe, employed in reverse so they would strike away from the normal shield hand, forcing opponants into an awkward stance, their weapon had greater reach than most other common weapons, and they stood uphill of the Normans. William had archers, Harold didn't. Harold himself, who was quite a warrior in his own right, is thought to have taken an arrow in the eye, which is certainly a critical hit.

I'm a big fan of a fighter with a big weapon (I prefer a greatsword to a greataxe, but ymmv), great cleave, and combat reflexes, just wading right into the enemy. You can certainly do damage way out of proportion to your performance in other combats. But it doesn't defeat armies. Eventually you just get grappled, knocked down, and pinned. Then they can just hit you with sticks until you're dead. There are accounts of successful knights ending up this way because they got seperated from their friends.

The model of one character defeating armies is just not appropriate to a game based on controlling holdings, mustering armies, and governing realms. Its all very FR, where super-characters determine the fate of nations. But blooded characters are not jedi. The topic this thread deals with, using low level characters, is one way of preventing the problem of epic characters interacting with spear-carriers.

Another is not to have armies simply 1st level warriors. Armies can, and should, be composed of characters of various levels lead by commanders of even higher level. Captains of a company should be stand-outs, I think 5th level is certainly appropriate. Elite units, higher. Perhaps if high level characters are the norm, adding several levels of commoner to soldiers makes sense.

All of the rules for running realms only makes sense if its worth the effort, bookkeeping, and otherwise useful. That's what makes BR special. As such it requires that super-characters not be the arbiters of nations. Realms should be the expression of powerful characters, not their own individual persons.

[gazza666]

My original reply contained an outline of how a 15th level fighter could perform as I suggested (and no, I didn't ignore grappling or archery). But I deleted it before posting because I'm pretty sure it would either:

Bore everyone
Get me accused of being a munchkin
Attract a series of "no DM would let that happen" responses

But if anyone is interested, PM me.

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the contention that high level characters nuking armies is not really appropriate to the BR setting. I merely point out that a standard D&D3e fighter is capable of this - and if a fighter can do it, you can bet that a wizard can.

[The Swordgaunt]

I forsee many issues with this.
The second issue is that specialisation encourages teamwork. Regent PCs already are somewhat difficult to convince to work together; if every PC can do a bit of fighting, a bit of spellcasting, and a bit of roguery, then it becomes even harder to convince them to work together.


No man is an island, at least not in Birthright. It should not be a problem to encourage characters to play with each other.

1 - Most players are part of a group. Make sure they have group-dynamics in mind when they create their characters.

2 - If step one doesn´t work, show them that allies are what will get them through the day. BR is all about interacting with pepole - other Regents, specialists, advisors, diplomats, local nobility, etc. - You need to trust someone...

[The Swordgaunt]

2. If you're willing to change more rules, you could import some rules from UA (such as wound/vitality/DR from armor etc.) or use alternate systems (such a d20 G&G or the aforementioned A Game of Thrones). Requires a bit more work though.



I´ve used the WP/VP system with good results. As for converting monsters, etc., I use Wizard´s Star Wars supplement Ultimate Alien Anthology. It´s a bit of a process at first, but (at least in my campaigns) I don´t have a myriad of monsters swarming the lands.

And it really gets the players to think strategic in a fight. A horde of goblins are quite likely to bring down a 10th level Fighter if he were to face them alone. If nothing else, they could simply swarm him, drag him of his horse, and (as you deal Wound damage to a prone target) crush his face with rocks. Hardly a glorious way to go down, but it encourages planning, group-play and takes the destructive edge off the 10th level party.

[The Swordgaunt]

Addendum:

The WP/VP-model opens for non-hero specialists. If you hire a master architect to construct your Great Wall, he doesn´t have to be a 10th level Munchkin. The Expert-, Diplomat-, and Thug classes from Star Wars offer a way to introduce characters with, say, a skill mod of 20 in Knowledge (Architecture) without upsetting the power balance of the entire region.

[Jarod_Lindfaller]

As far as this problem goes. I need to give kudos to the way our GM handles things.

We have our campaign set in a country that's not the Birthright staple, he created it himself and has put a lot of time in the map, the regions and and the NPCs there too.
We're running with the Wound/Vitality system and low magic. In fact, the entire party was allowed only one main spellcasting class.

As far as the NPCs go, I'm not sure if he gave them a direct sheet. We have our Emperor for instance. The GM put him down as 'Bad Ass', and he managed it that well that we're not even dreaming of wanting to challenge him, ever... yet.

We've been given plenty of good challenges, though most of the trouble we inflicted on ourselves by being too cocky. (We're blood scions, after all.) We're even debating a shared banner with the text : "macula solely ranch (eo)" (It) will have to work.

Currently, we've been king for a bit, ruled our own bit of land as landed regent and with the downtime skips inbetween we've been ruling for about 20-25 years now, on average. We have been grooming successors so we can take our PCs and vamoose for prestige projects and hobbies. After all, my little Warlock wants to be a (demi)God.

[Mikal]

For the high level PC taking on units bit: Why not just make a high level PC the same stats as a high level monster. Certainly a high level PC can equal a unique monster in damage output, as has been shown here. Either the PC can lead a unit of smaller leveled being as a hero and enhance it greatly (and at high levels, gaurntee survival), or it can go alone, still a potent unit, but not with a chance of death (since it'd probably be targeted by multiple units, and, if destroyed, killed). Does that seem a viable idea?

[Sigmund]

On 9/13/06, Sigmund <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> Since the CR system of BR is already kinda off, and the setting`s npcs were published as
> lower level to start, has anyone considered including, as either official or optional, a
> combat system like Grim `N Gritty for the BR setting.

No. Birthright is a D&D setting. The design goal is to hew as close
to that as possible, to make the setting usable for as many people as
possible. People that like G&G or Castles and Crusades or Grim Tales
or whatever are already sufficiently equipped to do with the setting
what they will.

--
Daniel McSorley


I'm very well aware that Birthright is a DnD setting. GnG is a combat system designed to be used with DnD in order to level the playing field with regards to personal combat prowess, not an entirely separate set of game rules. In that capacity it is much like wound/vitality points or in the case of magic, spellpoints. It alters existing DnD rules to achieve a different goal for the game. In my experience, most campaign settings provide some level of alterations to the core rules of a game in order to provide a certain "feel" to the setting. It seems to me that the GnG combat system, or a watered-down variation of it, would do a near-perfect job of preventing powerful adventurers from becoming able to overpower and dominate their surroundings and force them to operate in a manner more in keeping with the design of the setting. If the official BR conversion is only going to use official rules drawn from exclusively WotC sources, does that mean it's going to use the battle system presented in Heroes of Battle, instead of using it's own custom designed or converted one? If so, I'll certainly keep that in mind if I think of any future suggestions. Otherwise, I see no reason why a combat system similar to GnG should be summarily dismissed.

[kgauck]

gazza666,

I agree that the problem exists, for any sufficiently high level character. The d20 game has the virtue of being suitable for so many styles of campaigns. Since BR is not really good for man vs army (having these fine rules for raising armies and waging war), one can assume that

armies are not just 1st level warriors.
armies contain captains and other officers who are mid-level.
armies will attempt to use the best tactics for the mighty PC before them, including retreat.
using vitality/wounds as the damage alternate makes mighty characters much more vulnerable to a vast number of attacks.
and certainly as this very thread is concerned with, PC's should not get so powerful vis a vis the setting.

The model of the great PC who can defeat armies is known to history, myth, and literature, especially from the time before hoplite warfare. The age is often called "heroic" because of the fact that so many armies are really victorious as their champions are. When the Philistines have a champion who is deadly in close combat, the Israelites find a champion who is expert with a ranged weapon, in this case, a sling. As long as Hector lives, Troy believes that they have a chance to resist the Achaeans. Once Hector is killed by Achillies, the Trojans resign their fate to be taken.

One of my favorite ideas for an campaign arc would be to steal the idea of Seven Against Thebes. When Oedipus stepped down as King of Thebes, he gave the kingdom to his two sons, Eteocles and Polynices, who agreed to alternate the throne every year. After the first year, Eteocles refused to step down and Polynices attacked Thebes with his supporters (the eponymous seven against Thebes). Both brothers killed each other in single combat. The armies are neccesary, both brothers bother to raise them and bring them. But the real action is the heros of Eteocles against the heros of Polynices. Such a campaign could be set in Cariele, Rjuvik, Osoerde, Kiergard, and no doubt other realms as well. But the key to the action, in this thread, is that the heros fight other heros while their armies battle the enemy armies behind them. The heros don't fight the enemy armies, they fight one another. This, like David and Golith, like Hector and Achillies, is the key to keeping players from slaughtering whole enemy units.

[ploesch]

Besides everything that has been pointed out here, as far as armies not being all low level, and High level PC's taking on armies, etc.

I'd like to point out that once the PC's become known as being able to destroy armies, especially if they are blooded they are not only going to attract Awnshegh, but other powerful humans looking to make a name for themselves.

The King most certainly doesn't need to be the most powerful person in his realm. He could have an unblooded lieutenant that is loyal, and a 20th level fighter himself. Leaders of a great mercenary company could also be a group of adventurers, and a challenge for the PC's. A hedge Wizard, or a Khinasi Wizard could start coming after the PC abusing their magical power. Don't forget intrigue either, many a noble hero has been brought low by poison, or weakened enough to make them vulnerable on the battlefield.

Not everything has to be about the notable personalities, the unknown can be a much more effective tool.

[Sigmund]

gazza666,

I agree that the problem exists, for any sufficiently high level character. The d20 game has the virtue of being suitable for so many styles of campaigns. Since BR is not really good for man vs army (having these fine rules for raising armies and waging war), one can assume that

armies are not just 1st level warriors.
armies contain captains and other officers who are mid-level.
armies will attempt to use the best tactics for the mighty PC before them, including retreat.
using vitality/wounds as the damage alternate makes mighty characters much more vulnerable to a vast number of attacks.
and certainly as this very thread is concerned with, PC's should not get so powerful vis a vis the setting.

The model of the great PC who can defeat armies is known to history, myth, and literature, especially from the time before hoplite warfare. The age is often called "heroic" because of the fact that so many armies are really victorious as their champions are. When the Philistines have a champion who is deadly in close combat, the Israelites find a champion who is expert with a ranged weapon, in this case, a sling. As long as Hector lives, Troy believes that they have a chance to resist the Achaeans. Once Hector is killed by Achillies, the Trojans resign their fate to be taken.

One of my favorite ideas for an campaign arc would be to steal the idea of Seven Against Thebes. When Oedipus stepped down as King of Thebes, he gave the kingdom to his two sons, Eteocles and Polynices, who agreed to alternate the throne every year. After the first year, Eteocles refused to step down and Polynices attacked Thebes with his supporters (the eponymous seven against Thebes). Both brothers killed each other in single combat. The armies are neccesary, both brothers bother to raise them and bring them. But the real action is the heros of Eteocles against the heros of Polynices. Such a campaign could be set in Cariele, Rjuvik, Osoerde, Kiergard, and no doubt other realms as well. But the key to the action, in this thread, is that the heros fight other heros while their armies battle the enemy armies behind them. The heros don't fight the enemy armies, they fight one another. This, like David and Golith, like Hector and Achillies, is the key to keeping players from slaughtering whole enemy units.


Honestly, I think this is the best and truest to the setting way to handle this issue. Just reading it in kgauk's post inivokes a mythic feel that I hope to capture in my campaign. I will definitely be attempting to handle this issue in a similar manner.

[irdeggman]

I'm very well aware that Birthright is a DnD setting. GnG is a combat system designed to be used with DnD in order to level the playing field with regards to personal combat prowess, not an entirely separate set of game rules. In that capacity it is much like wound/vitality points or in the case of magic, spellpoints. It alters existing DnD rules to achieve a different goal for the game. In my experience, most campaign settings provide some level of alterations to the core rules of a game in order to provide a certain "feel" to the setting. It seems to me that the GnG combat system, or a watered-down variation of it, would do a near-perfect job of preventing powerful adventurers from becoming able to overpower and dominate their surroundings and force them to operate in a manner more in keeping with the design of the setting. If the official BR conversion is only going to use official rules drawn from exclusively WotC sources, does that mean it's going to use the battle system presented in Heroes of Battle, instead of using it's own custom designed or converted one? If so, I'll certainly keep that in mind if I think of any future suggestions. Otherwise, I see no reason why a combat system similar to GnG should be summarily dismissed.

There are several problems with using rules from other sources.

See this thread for the "contract" between WotC and the "Official fansite".

http://www.birthright.net/showpost.php?p=25466&postcount=5

Basically, since WotC owns the IP for Birthright they will "co-own" anything put together here. This causes issues when using someone else's material as the basis.

There are also potential "legal" issues using the material since it may or may not be OGC.

There are other potential problems when using 3rd party material in that there will probably be a more limited amount of people that have copies of the original source rules.


To date WotC has not published any real mass combat rules. Heroes of Battle while originally advertised as having some actually degenerated into a what can heroes do on the battle field as comparaed to how to handle mass combat.

Even the Minatures Handbook, which has the closest thing to mass combat rules from WotC doesn't relaly have them.

Popular 3rd party products like Cry Havoc and Fields of Blood (and now the Conan rules) likewise have limited access and OGC concerns.
What I prefer (and will most likely not end up what is finally in the battle section of the BRCS - based on poll results so far) is a system that is simplier than the one in the playest document. I prefer to have a simpler core system and have supplements with "conversion" stats to handle using the BR units in other 3rd party games liek Cry Havoc. In fact someone has actually posted some unit conversion for use in Cry Havoc somewhere on the boad.

What I have been getting from the pols and accompanying discussion is that people like a lot of the what is already in the playtest and want to expand on it. The training rules and how to improve units specifically.

Basically it comes down to this, IMO, people like the Cry Havoc (and similar 3rd party rules) but don't want to "buy" them. They would like something that is real similar and yet "free".

[Sigmund]

There are several problems with using rules from other sources.

See this thread for the "contract" between WotC and the "Official fansite".

http://www.birthright.net/showpost.php?p=25466&postcount=5

Basically, since WotC owns the IP for Birthright they will "co-own" anything put together here. This causes issues when using someone else's material as the basis.

There are also potential "legal" issues using the material since it may or may not be OGC.

There are other potential problems when using 3rd party material in that there will probably be a more limited amount of people that have copies of the original source rules.


To date WotC has not published any real mass combat rules. Heroes of Battle while originally advertised as having some actually degenerated into a what can heroes do on the battle field as comparaed to how to handle mass combat.

Even the Minatures Handbook, which has the closest thing to mass combat rules from WotC doesn't relaly have them.

Popular 3rd party products like Cry Havoc and Fields of Blood (and now the Conan rules) likewise have limited access and OGC concerns.
What I prefer (and will most likely not end up what is finally in the battle section of the BRCS - based on poll results so far) is a system that is simplier than the one in the playest document. I prefer to have a simpler core system and have supplements with "conversion" stats to handle using the BR units in other 3rd party games liek Cry Havoc. In fact someone has actually posted some unit conversion for use in Cry Havoc somewhere on the boad.

What I have been getting from the pols and accompanying discussion is that people like a lot of the what is already in the playtest and want to expand on it. The training rules and how to improve units specifically.

Basically it comes down to this, IMO, people like the Cry Havoc (and similar 3rd party rules) but don't want to "buy" them. They would like something that is real similar and yet "free".


Good points all. I asked about GnG specifically because not only does the system fit this application pretty well, but there was a free pdf out for a long time with a version of the system in it. As I said, True20's system, while having many differences, is a very similar system for combat. Why could we not here hash out a similar option for BR? I didn't mean to use the GnG system itself, but a system inspired by it.

I appreciate the info about the limitations in creating this conversion.

I'm at a disadvantage I guess because I don't currently have a budget that will allow me to buy many of these supplements, so I'm not familiar with them.

Your preferences seem to parallel mine in desiring simplicity (hence my love for True20), I hope such a system can be devised.

[Sigmund]

Besides everything that has been pointed out here, as far as armies not being all low level, and High level PC's taking on armies, etc.

I'd like to point out that once the PC's become known as being able to destroy armies, especially if they are blooded they are not only going to attract Awnshegh, but other powerful humans looking to make a name for themselves.



This is another approach I wholeheartedly support and am planning on attempting to implement in my campaign. The old "wild west" syndrome.... newbies out to make a name for themselves looking to climb the ladder of fame (or infamy) at the expense of those already higher up.

[kgauck]

All that the limitations imposed by WotC mean is that the official documents can't employ IP of other owned materials. As such, suggestions about outside materials and their use to solve BR issues might best be conducted in the Royal Library rather than in the BRCS discussion section, but several of the systems mentioned, such as vitality/wounds, are published in WotC materials, such as Star Wars or D20 Modern. Further, it is well established that anyone can review material without violating copywrite. Hence, statements that GnG is cool, and it works this way, and has these effects on play, are review material and perfectly appropriate (though again ideally placed in the Royal Library, though the flow of convesation being what it is...). What would be forbid is lengthy quotations, or even brief quotations not for review purposes. This site does function as a place for gamers to inform other games of useful products which will ehance their gaming experience. As such material resented for review is legal. It may not be possible (or even desirable) for the official BRCS to embrace GnG, but there is no problem in players recommending it to one another.

[Sigmund]

All that the limitations imposed by WotC mean is that the official documents can't employ IP of other owned materials. As such, suggestions about outside materials and their use to solve BR issues might best be conducted in the Royal Library rather than in the BRCS discussion section, but several of the systems mentioned, such as vitality/wounds, are published in WotC materials, such as Star Wars or D20 Modern. Further, it is well established that anyone can review material without violating copywrite. Hence, statements that GnG is cool, and it works this way, and has these effects on play, are review material and perfectly appropriate (though again ideally placed in the Royal Library, though the flow of convesation being what it is...). What would be forbid is lengthy quotations, or even brief quotations not for review purposes. This site does function as a place for gamers to inform other games of useful products which will ehance their gaming experience. As such material resented for review is legal. It may not be possible (or even desirable) for the official BRCS to embrace GnG, but there is no problem in players recommending it to one another.


I brought it up here as it directly addresses the issue of relative combat prowess in the DnD game between high and low levels characters, which seemed to me to be on topic. I mentioned it also because at least one other d20 derived game I'm aware of uses a system that is similar, although not the same, as the GnG system. I was wondering if any incarnation or inspired derivation of it had been considered to solve the issue at hand and if not, why it couldn't at least be considered now. My intention was not to recommend the GnG system itself, although I do for anyone who might be interested in it. To use GnG straight with the BRCS would also have pretty severe downsides that would need to be addressed. I am not the most knowledgable on the legalities and similar issues relating to this kinda stuff though...just a geek being geeky :)

If a GnG type system can't be considered for the BRCS, then W/V would probably be a decent way to go with it. Anything that would move the campaign towards leveling the playing field between opponents of differing levels of power/experience is what's needed. The nice thing about W/V is that the characters can still be heroic, but a lower level character still has a reasonable (albeit unlikely) chance of defeating a higher level one. It sounds like those players who have used it already in BR campaigns have had positive experiences with it.

I really like the idea of leveling up the npcs along with the pcs as the game progresses, but that would be hard to codify and include in the BRCS it seems. Still a great idea though.

Another method I have used, both to keep my players guessing and to reduce record-keeping, is to do away with xps and simply level characters up when it seems appropriate or required for the story (usually after one or two adventures depending on the length/difficulty). True20 has actually made this the default approach (yet another reason for my True20 love) and it has worked out just fine in my group so far. The significance for BR is that the advancement can be slowed down to a more reasonable pace for the specific DMs purposes.

[irdeggman]

W/V systems are pretty handy. I've used them in d20 Star Wars.

We can't use the one from d20 Star Wars since that is not OGC (anyone say Uncle George:D ).

d20 Modern doesn't have a WP/VP system it has instead a massive damage threshold one that IIRC is contained in the d20 Modern SRD and hence free to use.

The WP/VP system of UA (Unearthed Arcana) has some intracacies that require more than a mere layering of the system. Basically DR, critical hits and spells are things that must be addressed in relation to WP/VP.

But I caution that a mix of these systems would probably only be of relative simple application in the battle system and not on the adventuring level due to the fact that it causes a great deviation in the way things are "normally" done.

[geeman]

I have a V/WP system that I use. Though not really geared towards BR
(in which we have to deal with a few particular issues like
bloodtheft) it is a complete document. Let me go through it once and
I`ll post a version.

Gary

[Sigmund]

W/V systems are pretty handy. I've used them in d20 Star Wars.

We can't use the one from d20 Star Wars since that is not OGC (anyone say Uncle George:D ).

d20 Modern doesn't have a WP/VP system it has instead a massive damage threshold one that IIRC is contained in the d20 Modern SRD and hence free to use.

The WP/VP system of UA (Unearthed Arcana) has some intracacies that require more than a mere layering of the system. Basically DR, critical hits and spells are things that must be addressed in relation to WP/VP.

But I caution that a mix of these systems would probably only be of relative simple application in the battle system and not on the adventuring level due to the fact that it causes a great deviation in the way things are "normally" done.


I think it's the great deviation in the way things are "normally" done that makes it most attractive to me :) I do understand that the official raw needs to appeal to the majority though, however I think it'd be a great thing if a variation of v/w could be included at the adventuring level to provide the grittier feel that I think goes so well with this great setting.

Last time I played a character in BR, 3.0 had not been out too aweful long, and my DM had just read Game of Thrones. He had been running BR for awhile in 2ed so was familiar with the setting, converted it to 3, and ran the grittiest, most epic, and thoroughly intense campaign I'd ever experienced. Not long into it we ended switching to an early version of the GnG combat rules and it fit like a glove. I aspire to make my campaign half that awesome. That's probably where I get most of my ideas about a good BR campaign from, even though we had played a pretty durn good 2ed campaign before the 3ed one. The greater threat of death and lack of "uberness" was a huge contributing factor IMO, making heroics really feel heroic instead of "just another day at the office".

[geeman]

OK, here's a V/W system that I've used. It's part of a larger piece of text detailing some changes to the D20 combat system and some other things related to "The Hero System" that I use. I went through it once real quick to find anything that might be irrelevant for BR purposes or rely too heavily on other changes I've made to D20, but there's one thing that should probably be mentioned: The Hero System uses V/W and treats both those stats as abstractions (which they really are in other V/W systems too, they are just more tacitly acknowledged as abstractions in this version.) In the Hero System characters are defined as "hero classes" and "common classes." The only real functional difference between those two classes is their access to vitality points. For every heroic class there is a common class: fighter and warrior, noble and aristocrat, etc. The only difference is that where a heroic class gets what D&D refers to as a hit die, common classes get just a single vitality point per level. Otherwise, the classes are the same. This is to reflect that "non-adventuring" characters can be as skilled, talented, etc. as heroic characters, but they are simply more "fragile" than heros. It's done that way for a bunch of reasons that we need not go into, but that's the gist of the concept.

Should one want to use a V/W system like this one without the hero/common class stuff, however, it's easy to ignore. If you see "commoner" or "common" in this text, though, it's referring to the difference between heroic characters and those who are "common" in that sense, not in the BR dichotomy of scions and commoners.

I also prefer a much simplified system of feats, so only a few of those that are used in 3e are written up into this document--only those that directly relate to V/W. Some standard D&D/D20 feats might seem appropriate, but I've eliminated them from my system, so they aren't written up.

Anyway, use this at your pleasure. Comments are welcome.

Gary

[irdeggman]

I think it's the great deviation in the way things are "normally" done that makes it most attractive to me :) I do understand that the official raw needs to appeal to the majority though, however I think it'd be a great thing if a variation of v/w could be included at the adventuring level to provide the grittier feel that I think goes so well with this great setting.


Variants like this would best fit in Chap 8, IMO. That is where things that address different "styles" of play overall should go.

Now again I caution on the kind of detail being asked for her.

Look at Gary's post for what I'm talking about. What he put up is a pretty base-line version of a WP/VP system and yet it takes up 5 pages of text (when shrunk and placed in column form it would most likely add 2-3 pages to the BRCS). People had complained about the "size" of the BRCS when it was first posted (mostly due to download speeds) and just recently (with how much information they had to cypher through to get what they wanted out of it).

It is possible and I am not saying that it shouldn't be pursued, especially if a significant amount of people are interested in it - but keep in mind the "downsides" of such a tasking and remember that this is just one "variant" that people want so the "size" will only get bigger.

Now for those wanting grittier combat I'm not all that sure that a WP/VP really does what you want. It effectively adds extra points of damage a character can take (called WP) in addition to their hit points (called VP).

The massive damage rules in the RAW are scaled for large amount of damge (50 points from a single blow) so that probably doesn't quite cut it either.

d20 Modern has a different system (unfortuneately I can't find in the d20 Modern SRD) but is is called a massive damage threshold. This is equal to your Con score. Whenever you take damage from a single attack equal to or greater than your Con score you must make a Fort save (DC 15) or immediately go to -1 hit point.

[geeman]

At 06:20 AM 9/16/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>Now for those wanting grittier combat I`m not all that sure that a
>WP/VP really does what you want. It effectively adds extra points of
>damage a character can take (called WP) in addition to their hit
>points (called VP).

Most D&D gamers use the -10 rule. Effectively, what WP do is replace
those points from 0 to -10 in a way that combines with the standard
damage system.

BTW, in the above document, I use size as the base for WP rather than
Constitution score. I just found that a more reasonable basis for
the concept. The numbers, however, remain "cinematic" in the sense
that they don`t scale up in a "pound for poind... point for point" kind of way.

Gary

[geeman]

At 06:20 AM 9/16/2006, you wrote:

>I think it`s the great deviation in the way things are "normally"
>done that makes it most attractive to me :) I do understand that the
>official raw needs to appeal to the majority though, however I think
>it`d be a great thing if a variation of v/w could be included at the
>adventuring level to provide the grittier feel that I think goes so
>well with this great setting.

Unless it was particularly geared towards BR, I don`t think V/W
really needs to go into a BR document. While IMO it`s a much better
system than hit points and the -10 rule, and lends itself to most any
D&D setting, but its not specific enough to warrant inclusion in
campaign specific materials.

Now, if we tied spellcasting to VP and had a system to portray
bloodtheft in a way that ties into the V/W System then we`re talkin`....

Gary

[Sigmund]

At 06:20 AM 9/16/2006, you wrote:

>I think it`s the great deviation in the way things are "normally"
>done that makes it most attractive to me :) I do understand that the
>official raw needs to appeal to the majority though, however I think
>it`d be a great thing if a variation of v/w could be included at the
>adventuring level to provide the grittier feel that I think goes so
>well with this great setting.

Unless it was particularly geared towards BR, I don`t think V/W
really needs to go into a BR document. While IMO it`s a much better
system than hit points and the -10 rule, and lends itself to most any
D&D setting, but its not specific enough to warrant inclusion in
campaign specific materials.

Now, if we tied spellcasting to VP and had a system to portray
bloodtheft in a way that ties into the V/W System then we`re talkin`....

Gary


How about, for bloodtheft, the scion has to do the final wound point damage to slay the enemy in order to steal the bloodline...or something.

[irdeggman]

At 06:20 AM 9/16/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>Now for those wanting grittier combat I`m not all that sure that a
>WP/VP really does what you want. It effectively adds extra points of
>damage a character can take (called WP) in addition to their hit
>points (called VP).

Most D&D gamers use the -10 rule. Effectively, what WP do is replace
those points from 0 to -10 in a way that combines with the standard
damage system.

Well in Star Wars d20 the WP are "in addition" to the -10 rule, effectivly adding the WP to the total damage you can take. (You aren't "dead" until you have -10 WP). It's core premise was that "critical hit damage" went straight to WP and non-heroes don't have VP so everything goes to WPs.

And in the WP/VP system unlike the -10 system a character can operate when his VP are gone and he is taking WP damage. In the hit point system if your hit points go below 0 you are unconscious and dying (making saving throws every round to stabalize and avoid losing more hit points).

[RaspK_FOG]

Allow me to point out the Alternity system for a grittier, action-themed system: not as epic as D&D, not as drop-dead as other systems. It can, actually, be adapted for the d20 System with little problem.

On the other hand, and that's something I wanted to point out some time ago, the format the book is taking is becoming a little cumbersome: to be exact, the placement of text and some other things make the BRCS less readable; I would like to address these points at some other time, if that is not deemed inappropriate.

[irdeggman]

Allow me to point out the Alternity system for a grittier, action-themed system: not as epic as D&D, not as drop-dead as other systems. It can, actually, be adapted for the d20 System with little problem.

Yup Loved Alternity.

I played in a well done play by post game

http://www.tequilastarrise.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=forumdisplay&fid=24


On the other hand, and that's something I wanted to point out some time ago, the format the book is taking is becoming a little cumbersome: to be exact, the placement of text and some other things make the BRCS less readable; I would like to address these points at some other time, if that is not deemed inappropriate.

That is a problem - but the placement of variants typically follows the format set out by WotC so far.

The more variants - the harder it is to follow.

[kgauck]

Those who write of a grittier experience using Vitality and Wounds don't simply replace the -10 hp rule with the PC's constitution. Rather the key, as was mentioned earlier is the possibility of by-passing vitality and striking directly at a character's wound points, putting them in immediate jeopardy regardless of character level. One poster mentioned how a system he played made damage to prone characters wounds damage. I have always made falling damage and critical hits strike directly at wounds. This restores the possibility of anyone killing anyone else, getting some of that low level fragility which can be lost to mighty, high-level characters. The reason this has come up in a thread on BR being a Low Level setting, is because low levels and things that can narrow the gap a bit both prevent the setting from becoming a setting for the kind of FR heros who destroy kingdoms with a thrust of their lance or the casting of a spell.

There are several mechanics that work better in 3e with a more normal progression of levels, namely the skill system. Hence the common versions of classes. The class powers of all the classes, however, and much of the combat powers of all the classes at high level can lead to a heroic style game where the PC is more powerful than the combined power of his realm. When the realm becomes a sideshow, a great deal of the BR rules become irrelevant. It makes more sense for the standard BR to be built in such a way that the realms aren't obsolete from the start.

[RaspK_FOG]

Yup Loved Alternity.

I played in a well done play by post game
[...]

That is a problem - but the placement of variants typically follows the format set out by WotC so far.

The more variants - the harder it is to follow.
Glad you liked Alternity too. :)

On to the subject I mentioned, I am referring to the whole way this thing is done; WotC books make heavy use of outlines, shading, backgrounds, and other means to clearly define a piece of text as a sidebar; we do nothing of the sort. I can give a few tips here and there, and a good idea would be to use either a more clealy defined separator or learn something from Malhavok.

[irdeggman]

Other possibilities for grittier combat are:

Revised Massive Damage Thresholds in UA (basically using Con instead of 50 as the number).

A modified damage track (similar to Alternity or Deadlands). Basically divide the total amoutn of Hit points by a set number (Deadlands uses 5 - maybe 3 is better for BR purposes). When the first third is filled then all rolls after suffer a penalty (that is cumulative). So say a PC has 15 hit points. He can take 5 with no penalty. When he takes his 6th he suffers a penalty (-2 seems to be the D&D norm) to all rolls (attacks, saving throws, {damage is a possibility but most systems don't count that as a roll per say but a result of another roll}, skill checks, etc. When he takes his 11 point of damage he is in his 2nd damage increment and suffers an additional -2 to all rolls (now a -4).

[kgauck]

Using penalties (like -2) when a certain threshold of vitality is lost seems to be a form a fatigue penalty. I am sympathetic to a good set of fatigue rules. However, I am not satisfied with using % of vitality remaining as the mechanism for how it operates.

For one thing, some of the differences between weapons involve one's ability to use them for a long period of time. Take three weapons that are key to the Rjurik spears, swords, and axes. Spears are weapons you can wield all day long. Its light, well balanced, and doesn't require a great deal of strength or training to wield properly. In Homer, we know that Ajax, Achillies, and the rest have swords, they are mentioned. But the heros fight with spears most of the time, because a sword gets tiring to wield. Next is the sword, well balanced, easy to use in defence as well as offence, and once trained in its use (swords are martial weapons, most spears are not), is easy to use for a reasonable amount of time. Axes, are very unbalanced, nearly impossible to use in defence, and are basically usefull only in a full offense mode. They are tiring to use for a prolonged period of time even with training and experience. So a fatigue system should take into consideration which weapon I use. The spear carrier should be able to fight longer and with less of a penalty once fatigued, and so on.

Weapons tend to be pretty generic. Looking for interesting mechanisms to differentiate them, whether its DR penetration of armor (mentioned with Arcana Unearthed, if I recall), fatigue rules, or just special feats or even prestige classes associated with weapons (Swashbuckler using the Seven Seas setting is full of weapon specific PrC's) all seem worth a look to me.

Whether fatigue rules make sense in a normal adventure setting, or whether its really only useful in a battlefield setting also deserves some consideration.

[irdeggman]

On to the subject I mentioned, I am referring to the whole way this thing is done; WotC books make heavy use of outlines, shading, backgrounds, and other means to clearly define a piece of text as a sidebar; we do nothing of the sort. I can give a few tips here and there, and a good idea would be to use either a more clealy defined separator or learn something from Malhavok.

Ahh the color and placement.

That is something that was intended to be in the "fina formatting" when Arjan would put back in the artwork.

The present "look" of chapters 1 and 2 were never intended to be the "final" look. The "text" is what was intended to get right at this point.

[irdeggman]

Using penalties (like -2) when a certain threshold of vitality is lost seems to be a form a fatigue penalty. I am sympathetic to a good set of fatigue rules. However, I am not satisfied with using % of vitality remaining as the mechanism for how it operates.


I wasn't talking about a % of remaining points. The systems I was comparing to used a % of the total. And yes it is akin to a fatigue style of effect.

The massive damage threshold is not, however, a fatigue equivalent but a true lethal resistance one.

[kgauck]

I wasn't clear. When I said I wasn't satisfied with using a % of the vitality remaining, I meant remaining out of the total. I'm not sure it makes sense any other way, but there it is.

As for massive damage, I'm not sure I've ever seen a use for massive damage, where I didn't just elect to by-pass vitality and go strait to wounds. Massive damage seems to be a hold over of System Shock % to be used in Hit Points only systems.

I don't know how often people check the wizards boards, but there was a really good post on risk in battle, under the heading drama theory. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10098344&amp;postcount=663) It I think it has some interesting points on why BR has such difficulties with high level parties.

[geeman]

At 01:16 PM 9/16/2006, kgauck wrote:

>I have always made falling damage and critical hits strike directly at wounds.

Falling damage goes to WP.... Ouch. Brutal. I like it.

I always thought that there should be certain other effects using a
V/W system that might make for a particularly entertaining
system. Some of these are mentioned in other sources, but I`m not
sure which, so I`ll reiterate them.

First, the sneak attack ability should not do additional damage, but
lower the critical hit threshold by 1 point at each where it normally
increases damage by d6. That way the attacker potentially deals WP
damage, not "more damage."

Second, there might be certain magic items (like, oh, say, a Sword of
_Wounding_) that is more likely to do WP damage.

Third, certain poisons might do wound damage. (The "ability" to do
WP damage, at least, might be definitively more costly than VP.)

Fourth, catching an opponent by surprise (or flat-footed, or whatever
3.501e is calling it now) should increase the chance of doing WP damage.

It should probably be noted that in the V/W system described above
one does not die if one loses all one`s WP. It takes the loss of
both Vitality and Wound points to kill off a character. (I`m a
softy, I guess.)

>The class powers of all the classes, however, and much of the combat
>powers of all the classes at high level can lead to a heroic style
>game where the PC is more powerful than the combined power of his
>realm. When the realm becomes a sideshow, a great deal of the BR
>rules become irrelevant. It makes more sense for the standard BR to
>be built in such a way that the realms aren`t obsolete from the start.

I`ve been coming up with several ways to ratchet D20 back into a
manageable system. One way is by using skill points to buy skill
ranks in a progression. That is, the first skill rank costs 1 skill
point. A second rank costs 2 more points. The third, 3
points. Etc. Getting six ranks in a skill would then cost
1+2+3+4+5+6=15 skill points.

I`m turning BAB into a skill based system too--so the whole thing
with characters running around with more bonuses than there are
facets on the die the player is rolling should be a thing of the past.

Gary

[kgauck]

On Gary's Proposals


First, the sneak attack ability should not do additional damage, but lower the critical hit threshold by 1 point at each where it normally increases damage by d6. That way the attacker potentially deals WP damage, not "more damage."
This sounds significantly better than the current method where a 5th level rogue could be doing +3d6 damage almost at the drop of a hat. Its my conviction that fighters should be the best at combat, and other classes should shine elsewhere. Current design seems to have all classes shining differently in combat, but outside of combat, the fighter stands around waiting for another combat, and other classes still have things to do. Fighters should not be overshadowed in combat as a matter of course.


Second, there might be certain magic items (like, oh, say, a Sword of _Wounding_) that is more likely to do WP damage.
Keen weapons double the threat range. That is probabaly the best method of being more likely to do WP damage. Of course another magical weapon might do dx+y damage in normal conditions, but more damage when critical. Consider a Flaming Burst weapon, which does +1d10 points of bonus hp damage on a successful critical hit. Such a weapon might do +2 wound points instead. And there might be alternatives to faming bursts that otherwise do more damage during critical hits than normal hits.


Third, certain poisons might do wound damage. (The "ability" to do WP damage, at least, might be definitively more costly than VP.)
Because of the close relationship between the Constitution score and the total number of Wound points a character has, is there a good reason not to just leave poisons attacking Con scores and have wound just track along?


Fourth, catching an opponent by surprise (or flat-footed, or whatever 3.501e is calling it now) should increase the chance of doing WP damage.
Sensible, but duplicated in the Sneak Attack. One the one hand, I do see some virtue to making everyone more deadly in surprise (very Romulan indeed) but sneaking and surpise seems to be the strength of certain classes, like the rogue and Silent Ones of Eloéle (which seems to be older than the boards have on record) , who should certainly be more likely to make a wounding blow with surprise.


It should probably be noted that in the V/W system described above one does not die if one loses all one`s WP. It takes the loss of both Vitality and Wound points to kill off a character. (I`m a softy, I guess.)
You are a softy! I have poor characters die when the have no more Wounds. However, I have a soft side of my own. When a weapon does critical damage, only the first die (identified by a different color) strikes at wounds and the other dice do vitality damage. A heavy pick would do d6 wound damage and 3d6 vitality damage with a critical hit, rather than 4d6 hp, or going all to wounds. Since PC's have 3d6 (at least in terms of range) wound points, it generally takes three dice of wounds, or three critical hits to kill a PC.

So you might think right away of an Assassin using a Con poison who applies it to a keen dagger and has a few sneak attack bonuses and gets a surprise attack, plus he's got the Death Attack, which I regard as another attack that bypasses vitality and goes strait to wounds.


I`ve been coming up with several ways to ratchet D20 back into a manageable system. One way is by using skill points to buy skill ranks in a progression. That is, the first skill rank costs 1 skill point. A second rank costs 2 more points. The third, 3 points. Etc. Getting six ranks in a skill would then cost 1+2+3+4+5+6=15 skill points.
I have to imagine this will produce at least a bit of skill point inflation, if that isn't already the case. This formula seems quite steep to me, where core classes like fighter, cleric, and wizard have 2 skill ranks/level. What I do like about it is that it strongly encourages characters to have all their skills, because its far more effecient to but one rank in all class skills before buying a second or third rank in any skill. Perhaps some kind of inflation is required to get to any reasonable outcome. I suppose the thing to do is to take the high level characters in your campaign and ask how they ought to look and work backword.

My own solution has been to keep DC's low enough that no one needs to max out skills to get along in the world, to require checks in a lot of skills, so that characters are either spreading their skill points around or getting along with untrained checks. Its been satisfactory, but not ideal. Players generally know that 5 ranks in a skill is sufficient to get a lot of jobs done, and start investing in new skills once they get around 5.


I`m turning BAB into a skill based system too--so the whole thing with characters running around with more bonuses than there are facets on the die the player is rolling should be a thing of the past.
Heresy! Outrage! You've crossed the line into some other game system. Call the guards! Send out the hounds!

[ploesch]

On the skill point thing....

In my game I have a -5 untrained penalty. Also, I don't consider a skill trained unless you have a full 1 Point in it.

This has 2 effects:
1. It makes it so that a person who is trained in a skill won't be outshined by someone with a better stat for that skill, which was my intended purpose.
2. It had the unintentional effect of causing people to spread their points out more. Even more so, because once they had one point in a skill, they went for 5 to get synergy bonuses.

Don't forget modifiers, I make up my own all the time just to keep people on their toes. -2 sneak, the floors wet. LOL

[geeman]

At 04:52 PM 9/18/2006, kgauck wrote:

>Fighters should not be overshadowed in combat as a matter of course.

Absolutely. I think the sneak attack ability
should get ratcheted back in general--even this
suggestion might be a bit too much. A crit
threat range of 14-20 in a V/W system instead of
6d6 damage strikes me as being overpowered, even
if the rogue only gets that ability under
particular circumstances. Of course, I never
liked that he got the 6d6 either, so it might be
a matter of my personal sense of balance....

>>Second, there might be certain magic items (like, oh, say, a Sword of
>>_Wounding_) that is more likely to do WP damage.[quote]
>
>Keen weapons double the threat range. That is
>probabaly the best method of being [i]more
>likely[i] to do WP damage. Of course another
>magical weapon might do dx+y damage in normal
>conditions, but more damage when
>critical. Consider a Flaming Burst weapon,
>which does +1d10 points of bonus hp damage on a
>successful critical hit. Such a weapon might do
>+2 wound points instead. And there might be
>alternatives to faming bursts that otherwise do
>more damage during critical hits than normal hits.

It`s worth mentioning that the concept of
critical threats needs a little revision in a V/W
system. In all the D20 incarnations that use it
most weapons do not get by themselves lower than
19, and even that is pretty rare. (Lightsabers
in D20 Star Wars, for example.) One has to come
up with other methods of dealing with weapon
types/damage, such as the way feats interact with
particular weapon types. Weapon Finesse might be
inherit to a range of, well, non-ranged weapons....

>------------ QUOTE ----------
>Third, certain poisons might do wound damage. (The "ability" to do
>WP damage, at least, might be definitively more costly than VP.)[quote]
>
>Because of the close relationship between the
>Constitution score and the total number of Wound
>points a character has, is there a good reason
>not to just leave poisons attacking Con scores and have wound just track along?

It`s just another way of inflicting damage, I
suppose. The system I posted does, however,
differentiate between Con score and WP more than
other V/W systems. WP <> Con score in that
system. Rather than a straight conversion of
score to points WP are based on size and modified
by the character`s Con modifier. So, poison that
did WP damage would be a little different in that
Con score would remain the same, but characters
would suffer the various effects of wound damage
rather than a reduction of "hit points" due to decreased Con.

>>Fourth, catching an opponent by surprise (or flat-footed, or whatever
>>3.501e is calling it now) should increase the
>>chance of doing WP damage.[quote]
>
>Sensible, but duplicated in the Sneak
>Attack. One the one hand, I do see some virtue
>to making everyone more deadly in surprise (very
>Romulan indeed) but sneaking and surpise seems
>to be the strength of certain classes, like the
>rogue and Silent Ones of Eloéle (which seems to
>be older than the boards have on record) , who
>should certainly be more likely to make a wounding blow with surprise.

If there`s a bonus to critical threat range, or
some other factor (a Reflex throw to avoid wound
damage or whatever) then it makes that aspect of
the system available to non-rogues. It`s always
troubled me that a fighter attacking from cover
and surprise is less effective than a rogue might
be. It turns all the surprise attackers in
literature, history and real life into rogues
rather than fighters, which I don`t really
buy. I don`t think I`d want to interpret Togo
was a rogue, as a kind of extreme example.

Along these lines, I think traps might also do
wound damage too under certain
circumstances. They are, after all, attacking
with "surprise" and it`s hard to picture the guy
who steps in a bear trap taking vitality damage
rather than suffering an actual injury. "My that
pungee stick was sharp... I`m exhausted."


>>I`ve been coming up with several ways to
>>ratchet D20 back into a manageable system. One
>>way is by using skill points to buy skill ranks
>>in a progression. That is, the first skill rank
>>costs 1 skill point. A second rank costs 2 more
>>points. The third, 3 points. Etc. Getting six
>>ranks in a skill would then cost 1+2+3+4+5+6=15 skill points.
>
>I have to imagine this will produce at least a
>bit of skill point inflation, if that isn`t
>already the case. This formula seems quite
>steep to me, where core classes like fighter,
>cleric, and wizard have 2 skill
>ranks/level. What I do like about it is that it
>strongly encourages characters to have all their
>skills, because its far more effecient to but
>one rank in all class skills before buying a
>second or third rank in any skill. Perhaps some
>kind of inflation is required to get to any
>reasonable outcome. I suppose the thing to do
>is to take the high level characters in your
>campaign and ask how they [i]ought[i] to look and work backword.

I should mention that it goes along with a bunch
of other changes that many folks would say makes
it not D20 any more. I don`t know if I would say
it`s not D20, personally, even though one of the
changes is that there is no more d20. (I prefer
2d10 for resolving attacks, skill checks,
etc.) Even so, if Mutants and Masterminds is
still D20 then I don`t think my changes
necessarily are so drastic as to make it an
entirely different system. The system is still
level based, uses most of the same vocabulary,
etc. However, a few comparatively modest changes
to D&D that I`ve suggested in the past seem to
rankle folks, so I have to assume that giving all
character classes the same number of skill
points, but using skill points rather than BAB
would be problematic for similar reasons.

Gary

[irdeggman]

On the skill point thing....

In my game I have a -5 untrained penalty. Also, I don't consider a skill trained unless you have a full 1 Point in it.


The 1 rank thing parallels the RAW:



Trained Only: If this notation is included in the skill name line, you must have at least 1 rank in the skill to use it. If it is omitted, the skill can be used untrained (with a rank of 0). If any special notes apply to trained or untrained use, they are covered in the Untrained section (see below).

[hirumatogeru]

Yup Loved Alternity.

I played in a well done play by post game

http://www.tequilastarrise.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=forumdisplay&fid=24



That is a problem - but the placement of variants typically follows the format set out by WotC so far.

The more variants - the harder it is to follow.

I also liked the Alternity system but unfortunately, it is very complex, and each skill usage usually can require flipping through the rulebook to see what the effect is.

I also find this a problem with d20 these days unless you've been playing with it for a long time and know the rules by heart.

That's why I have turned to systems like Savage Worlds and True20 to simplify the mechanics to a point where I can focus more on the story and less on modifiers to such-and-such skill checks.

I also HATE the use of hit points as a measure of damage taken. Very hard to describe to players what happens when they roll damage or take it.

[RaspK_FOG]

Hm... I don't find the skill system that difficult, but it may be just me.

As for Alternity, I mostly mentioned it for one and only reason: it has a far better system than V/W points, in my opinion.

[hirumatogeru]

Indeed! I'd invite anyone actually reading this thread to look into some alternative rule systems to D&D now and again. There are some real stinkers out there, and not every rules engine will work with every campaign setting's feel, but I definately recommend looking around. Some of my favourites of late are.

Alternity (oop)
Savage Worlds (Great White Games)
True20 (Green Ronin)

[gazza666]

Rogues vs Fighters in combat summary: Fighters have nothing to worry about from rogues.

Detailed analysis:
IF the rogue is able to sneak attack every time he gets a full attack, then he can - at low levels - match a fighters raw damage output occasionally. However, this is not particularly likely in practice. There are two reasonable ways for a rogue to attempt this; the first is to have a friendly wizard throw a greater invisibility spell on the rogue, and the second is to get into a flanking position with another melee combatant - probably a fighter.

Using the first tactic requires a level 7 wizard, and assuming that the rogue and fighter are in the same party they'll be 7th level as well. A rogue using a longsword will do 1d8+4d6 damage on each successful attack; taking critical chances into account, that's 18.95 damage average per hit. A 7th level fighter with weapon focus and specialisation in longsword has a 15% better chance to hit than the rogue does; let's assume he Power Attacks for 3 to even that out. He'll average 10.45 damage per hit - but, importantly, he'll have an AC around 4 points higher, 60% more hit points, and a second attack each round.

Still, things look pretty good for the rogue there - it is, however, largely the result of a cooperative wizard. Let's suppose that the wizard selfishly prepared something instead of greater invisibility. That puts the rogue in a position where he has to flank with the fighter. Any situation where one weak attacker is doing more damage than a stronger attacker, and both are in range, is not going to work out well for the rogue.

This is at low levels, mind. At high levels events conspire to be much worse for the poor rogue - largely in the form of the greater frequency of critical immune creatures. In addition, the higher the level, the greater the disparity in attack bonus between a fighter and a rogue, which also works against the poor footpad.

And note that I've assumed here that the rogue and fighter have equal strength, which would be a tad unusual in reality.

This is not to suggest that rogues suck by any means - however, they do not outshine fighters in combat.

[Green Knight]

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic at hand?

Anyway, rogues are known to have several interresting non-combat skills that balance out their utility in a classic DnD party.

[gazza666]

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic at hand?
It was being debated above (by geeman, among others).

[geeman]

At 03:01 AM 9/22/2006, Gaza666 wrote:

>It was being debated above (by geeman, among others).

Just to clarify, what was being pointed out above was that rogues
should never outshine fighters in straight combat, not whether they
do or don`t as written in 3e. That is, using a system like V/W
points their sneak attack ability might be more significant in such a
system if it reduces their critical threat to the point where they
are increasingly likely to do WP damage. Since those effects are
much more drastic it could prove problematic for a DM to use V/W if
the rogues are going to get single hits that disable or come close to
disabling an opponent (like a fighter) because a single critical hit
can take that opponent down. So the DM might want to reduce the pace
at which rogues` sneak attack ability reduces their critical threat
range rather than make it a straight 1d6 = -1 to critical threat
range for those attacks.

I do think the analysis of a rogue versus fighter uses a lot of odd
assumptions in order to draw its conclusions (what rogue is going to
go into single combat with a fighter in the first place?) but that
wasn`t really the point.

Gary

[Green Knight]

Just me being a bit slow then. I just didn't see where the ftr vs. rog comparison entered into the picture.

Being a WP/VP man myself, I use exactly the system described. +1d6 sneak attack gives a -1 to threath range, and crits go directly on WPs.

[manetherin]

I've been mulling over this post and a few ideas of my own while planning a future campaign I'll be running.

Im thinking of a few systems that can help to keep things reasonable and stick with my idea of the flavor of BR. Figured I'd post them here and see what you guys think.

Essentially the end result I'm going for is to enhance the feel of the very real possibility of death, without taking away too much of the "I'm a badass" feeling for having managed to get a character to the higher levels. I want to make sure normal adventuring remains viable, (if a bit more grim) but make it very clear that if one man (regardless of how good he may be) or even a standard party of 4-6 characters takes on a serious horde of hundreds or more in head-on combat, the horde will win.

Does result in a bit more work for us DM's but I have no objection to an extra sheet of scratch paper if it means the game is more interesting.

A VP/WP system, but with a few modifications taken from here and a few of my own.

1. Rather than sneak attack increasing crit chances, have each 'rank' of sneak attack be 1 damage applied to WP regardless of whether the normal weapon damage from the weapon penetrated VP via crit.

2. With WP equalling Con (and subsequently with little or no chance that a player will choose to have a character start with a low Con) have wounds to WP result in lowered combat modifiers equal to that level of Con. So if Bob the Barbarian is reduced to 7 WP he gets a -2 on BAB and saving throws as well as any other rolls the DM feels appropriate. Kind of reflects how mundane things can become very difficult when you're seriously maimed.

3. Use the basic armor for DR system.

4. Modified massive damage rule: even in plate mail, if 50 guys smack your steel-clad self, even if they dont manage to do any real damage it still hurts a bit and can disorient and/or distract you quite a lot, so say if total damage (from all opponents, before DR) stacks over 75 in a single round apply a -2 modifier to all rolls for the round afterward.

I think this works out pretty well, makes combat in general a bit more dangerous, and combat versus very large numbers very nearly suicide.



On the magic side of things, to kind of unofficially enforce the concept of low magic..

It's been a while since I read the BRCS but if I'm not mistaken it uses Source level for most modifiers rather than caster level, right?

Say casting any True Magic spells at all produces a sensation that any regent controling a source in that province can sense, though it doesnt provide any indication where it is being cast other than the province where that particular Source is.

Make it so casting any true magic from spell levels 5 and up reduces the effective Source level of all sources in that province by 1 for purposes of modifiers (can still cast realm spells requiring the origional source level, just less effectively due to changed effective source level) for the next domain turn. This is not cumulative except in unusual circumstances such as several casters lobbing heavy duty spells or one spellcaster leveling an entire town with repeated meteor storms. Of course, 'unusual circumstances' could be interpreted pretty much any way the DM wants.

That way, casting true magic of any kind can draw attention from any nearby source regents, who might or might not be happy about your presence. Casting serious true magic can reduce the local sources, which is certain to irk all resident source regents, and doing so in your own territory can reduce your own potential power and weaken you in the eyes of neighbors if they happen to be paying attention.

I would have made it a bit more severe of a penalty, but then it would be too abusable (ie; "we're gonna attack this guy, but first me and my five apprentice/lieutenants are going to sneak in and fill a valley with cloudkill spells to drain his Sources)

[gazza666]

I'm not sure that any of that does more than just make fighters weak.

A standard unit in BR is 200 individuals. Virtually any high level spellcaster has spells that can easily destroy that many low level individuals without ever placing oneself in a position of personal harm (one simple example: druid Shapechanges into something incorporeal - in case the unit are archers - and then uses Storm of Vengeance; even if the unit is not totally destroyed, they will certainly be routed).

One can of course rule that such tactics don't work - perhaps only unit-affecting spells can affect units or something - but it's hard to justify that within the game (some spells are clearly designed for use against hordes).

As far as the whole "any true magic upsets source holders" ruling, to my mind all that means is that you'll kill them first.

While my tastes are certainly more to the high than the low level of D&D, I'm inclined to agree with the others when they say that high level characters do not really fit the default feel of Birthright.

[manetherin]

I'm not seeing how all this does is weaken fighters. Pretty much the end result of almost any VP/WP variant is that it makes critical hits actually critical again instead of something 75% of the party brushes off along the lines of "Eh, again? No big deal" by 10th level. With standard by-the-book HP the only characters who really fear hand-to-hand criticals after say 8th level are the d4 hd classes.

In all honesty, I find it hard to believe any DM would simply sit back and let a single spellcaster drop a single non-realm spell that wipes out an entire army without some form of complication. Allowing that to me represents poor planning on the DM's part ahead of time and lack of ability to anticipate the players. The same applies to the idea of assassinating every source regent in every province in which you intend to cast true magic.

I do agree that Birthright naturally leans towards a lower level campaign though. I’m just suggesting a system where those 200 low level guys with spears over there still have a vaguely fighting chance of being anything other than a gnat to a high-level party of four characters if it does get that high.

[gazza666]

It weakens fighters because they're the only ones that actually have to face the possibility of getting hit (critical or otherwise) in order to wipe out an army. (Rogues, too, of course, but rogues typically don't have the ability to do this anyway). In any case Heavy Fortification armor helps even fighters.

As far as letting players wiping out an army being a bad DM - why? It may not be to your particular taste, and that's fine, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with it in principle. A DM may place the army there with the expectation that the PCs will destroy it; it becomes the same sort of "speed bump" that any minor encounter is. You're assuming that the PCs caught the DM with his pants down; it's quite possible that it was planning on the DMs part that sets up the encounter in the first place.

Speaking personally, if I ever thought I could consistently anticipate my players I'd interpret that as a failing of creativity on their behalf - if it happened long enough I'd look for a new group. Most of the appeal of DMing comes from seeing how your players can surprise you. It's the sign of a bad DM to react to surprises with "you can't do that".

[irdeggman]

Something to also remember is that if the PCs can do it then so can the NPCs. {Insert evil DM laugh here}

I really don't see a problem with a Realm spell wiping out a unit (or some units) of troops. It is a Realm spell after all. It is supposed to be very, very powerful and it takes a domain round to cast (or precast) in the first place.

I equate Realm spells to the power of epic spells only that non-epic level characters can cast them - so the power level is probably about right overall.

[manetherin]

Realm spells killing one or several units I completely agree with, that's part of the point of how they work. What I'm talking about is 4 characters standing at one end of a battlefield and, say, Ghoere or Avanil's standing army at the other end. Granted, a well-used realm spell will take out a fair chunk, and a few well-placed standard spells can route a few others, but if those four individuals manage to completely wipe out a few thousand well armed and trained troops following experienced military leadership in the course of one day, something is very, very wrong.

I never respond with "you cant do that" when a player declares a game-breaking action like that. I plan my campaigns and work with the tools provided in a way that makes it clear that there is a difference between heroic actions and just plain unreasonable expectations.

[kgauck]

Anticipating the PC's doesn't mean you put them in a "you can't do that situation" by imposing no magic zones or haven an enemy spellcaster post hoc buff enemy spear carriers with exactly the right protections and immunities. Rather, it means that you have the enemy unit, in this case, adopt tactics that will minimize the effects of likely spells. Not even the latest spell learned by the PC's but some common area effect spell they have used in the past. After all the heros have a reputation and the opposition is paying attention. If the enemy is planning an ambush, they should look for terrain which will grant line of sight problems, provide cover, like gullies, rocks, or trees, or grant then other kinds of normal tactical advantages, like hight and the ability to lie in wait getting so close to the PC's before they strike that some opposition guys are in melee by the time the spellcasters are able to cast much of anything.

Anticipation may also mean sending 70 goblins with 2 levels of rogue to ambush the party rather than 200 goblins with no adventure levels. Whether this is a scout or irregulars unit, its not the draftee unit of the enemy army. A 2nd level rogue gets Evasion as well as the Sneak Attack bonus for flanking. With extra skill points their Hide and Move Silently will be higher as will their Listen and Spot for initiating the attack.

Another handy trick to use to anticipate the players is to actually hire a villain. I first used this trick during my Baruk-Azhik campaign. I knew a guy who lived far away, but would give me ideas for the evil Duke of Osoerde. I would describe what he would know about the PC's, their past actions, their possible motivations, and he would describe his defenses, attacks, and actions (more his realm's than his persons) and provide ideas. I would pick someone who games, or just has good tactical advice for movie characters, but can't be in your game for one reason or another. This other person isn't playing the opposition, really, but advising the opposition. They will invent plots, attacks, and defenses that are not your style. After all, just as you should be anticipating the PC's, the PC's are anticipating you.

If the PC's have cool abilities, they will use them. After a time or two, the opposition should know that have these abilities, and even if the opposition can't counter them, and sometimes they should, they can always at least warn the spear carriers they send to their doom about these abilities and hope that the challenge is a bit more difficult because of it.

[gazza666]

That's where we'll have to agree to differ, then, because with the power of 9th level spells and 20th level spellcasters, wiping out that army doesn't constitute an "unreasonable expectation" in my book.

This is not to say that high level adventures revolve around such things, of course, but if army play is important to your D&D game, then some serious house rules are needed to prevent high level characters ... well, probably existing. Worst case scenario for the high levels is that they run out of spells and have to run away. D&D is not a game where heroes need fear hordes of normal soldiers, not without extensive modification. It is possible to argue that they would face retribution from other high level NPCs, certainly, but that only serves to underscore the point, not refute it.

In exactly the same way that a well equipped party of 4th level PCs can expect to defeat 20 1st level warrior orcs, a well equipped party of 20th level PCs can expect to defeat 200 (or even 2000). The difference in realism is one of degree, not of kind - a 20th level character is a lot more than 10 times more powerful than he was at 4th level, so why wouldn't you expect him to be able to achieve 10 times as much?

It's not the right tone for Birthright, though - for that reason, it is well worth limiting the maximum levels via whatever means seems appropriate. Either that, or you can obviously rule that a standard unit consists of say 4th or 5th level characters, 10th level characters, or whatever you feel is needed (though that causes more problems with realism than it solves, IMHO).

[gazza666]

Anticipating the PC's doesn't mean you put them in a "you can't do that situation" by imposing no magic zones or haven an enemy spellcaster post hoc buff enemy spear carriers with exactly the right protections and immunities.

(snip!)

I have no problem with any of that, because you are essentially acknowledging my point: that in a drag out battle, the PCs have the advantage. So absolutely the opposition should be sneaky and make things harder; no issues with that all. That doesn't change my core point, which is simply this: all else being equal, a group of 1st level warriors of arbitrary size is not a challenge for a party of 20th level PCs. By all means make it harder by playing the foes intelligently. By all means have the army use intelligent tactics to make things more interesting. But remember that the army is definitely the underdog here; the PCs don't even get any experience points for defeating such weak foes, by the core rules.

[kgauck]

If PC's are so powerful that they don't even bother to muster their own armies, because they are so powerful, I would not have rival rulers send such armies against them. Rather, the enemy should throw or lead a rival set of heros against them. You don't send an army to its death throwing spears at Goliath, King Saul waits to find David.

[epicsoul]

If PC's are so powerful that they don't even bother to muster their own armies, because they are so powerful, I would not have rival rulers send such armies against them. Rather, the enemy should throw or lead a rival set of heros against them. You don't send an army to its death throwing spears at Goliath, King Saul waits to find David.


Again, the problem here is spellcasters. All the high level spell caster has to do is manage to sling one 9th level spell (say, meteor swarm as a great example) and multiple units can die. It has the effect of the Mass Destruction realm spell in an instant, rather than taking RP/GB to cast.

All other things being equal, yes, the high level fighters and rogues will effectively cancel each other out if you have a rival set of heros against them. Not so with the spellcasters - and counterspelling to defend your troops can only go so far. Once one of the spellcasters on either side is neutralized, the other side basically wins the battle - by bombarding the army out of existence.

As a DM, I have run the Bloodstone series of adventures 3 times now. It's a great example - even if not BR. H3, Bloodstone Wars, has the PCs fight a number of battles. Only once was I inexperienced enough to not realize that some of the battles therein are somewhat... inequal. Basically, in the first battles, against Arcata, it is very clear that the Arcatans have NO high level casters, at all. They got butchered. Net losses on the side of the PCs? Zero.

The order of battle for the other duchies and baronies DID have casters, and thus, the battles were not so one-sided.

Worse, however, is the concept that I have spoken about before. Wars do NOT work with high level characters, because of the vast amount of power a high level caster can do. Armies become irrelevant, because the D&D system of magic is set up to be one that is more offensive than defensive. Yes, there are buffs, and healing, defensive spells (globes of invulnerability IMMEDIATELY come to mind), even a counterspell system. Fact remains however, that he who gets the first blast or two in, wins. So, wizards, with their stalwart adventurer friends, can sneak in, before a battle even commences, and through hit and run tactics, obliterate the entire enemy army without even a scratch on their own. Worse, from a realistic perspective, the same thing should be happening to their own armies if the bad guys' heroes are doing the same.

Look - we've already discussed before about something major - the Gorgon could steam-roll over every army in the game, pretty well, as his 3e stats are written. Many DMs created some type of game reason why he doesn't just do this. The same thing applies obviously to 17+th level characters. At this point, the character is powerful enough that they can LITERALLY make anything they want happen (Wish spell).

This thread was started because I was looking for other ideas to foster a way to limit the power of a high level character. I proposed encouraging multi-classing, as it effectively reduces the firepower of a character in many ways, while making them more versatile. Kgauck in the very next post stated that this would make them more powerful in the diplomatic/social setting of BR. Great! As long as they can't level armies, I am happy!

We've read about various tactics that the DM can use to reduce the abilities that high level characters can bring to bear. I applaud these, but they often take into account the fact of having mid-level minions to do these things (one made mention of using 70 2nd level goblin rogues - although 2nd level is hardly mid-level). Given the population of Cerilia, it seems unrealistic to have NPCs running around with all these levels. The average person SHOULD be 1st level. Suddenly increasing the levels of everybody around, while creating a bit of game balance, takes away from the game - it even detracts from the value of the hardship that those PCs went through to earn the xp to go up the levels that they have. Kind of insulting, really.

One of my players recently made an interesting insight, however. Perhaps having high level characters is like having a nuclear arms race. Once you got 'em, don't use 'em - keep your wars conventional. Because, if you do, the bad guy may just as well. Perhaps the real reason the Gorgie doesn't go on the rampage is because he's waiting for the PCs to do something like leveling an entire army, and now he goes and does the same to them. Everybody lets fly with their magical equiv. of nukes, meanwhile the PCs are untouched - but entire cities of people disappear in conflagrations of flame. However, nobody, not even Gorgie, wants to start such a horrific battle (in Gorgie's case, because he wants to rule the Empire, not a charred piece of ruin). Only a nihilist of epic power would actually want to start this conflict.

Not the most BR in flavour, admittedly, but it gives an idea of why to play "fair". Yeah, in some ways, it goes against the Khinasi 5 Oaths, where it is implied that wizards DO use their spells on the battlefield, but maybe they only do a bit.

[kgauck]

I'm just not qualified to discuss such high level casters. Finding CR's in my Taelshore above 6, 7, or 8 are vanishingly rare. PC's start to top off at 10th level. I have required that spellcasting levels cannot equal more than 50% of a characters total levels. In 2e I re-wrote the spell lists, and I'd be happy to do it again if spellcasting started to run amok.

You mention multi-classing as a solution. I have been very happy with the requirement that spellcasting levels remain half of the character's total levels. At first my campaign's druid balked, but I told him he would be like Merlin, a wise and powerful advisor, necessary to the warriors in the game, but not because he could throw down an Ice Storm on their enemies. I explained that spells would have much more connection to the skill system, and that by multi-classing to get skills, his spell powers would be enhanced by taking skill rich classes like Expert.

If he had been set on calling down deleterious hail or lighting storms, he might not have gone along. And this was a druid.

[gazza666]

One of my players recently made an interesting insight, however. Perhaps having high level characters is like having a nuclear arms race.
(snip!)

The problem with that is the same as it is with the analogous real world situation - it assumes that your magical/nuclear capable opponents are sane. For the most part they will be, but a single nutter is all it takes. I submit for your consideration the proposition that awnsheglien are perhaps not entirely sane.

In the real world, the sane nuclear powers do not merely rely on their treaties - they take steps to keep these weapons out of the hands of nutters. In BR terms, perhaps that means that the sane rulers gang up on the insane ones to prevent them ever getting to high level... but the Gorgon, the Spider, and so forth kind of work as pretty damning counterarguments.

[ploesch]

I've never had my armies be made up of entirely 1st level NPC's. In my games the average soldier is 3rd level, captains and such are 5+ level. A unit of elite Knights would run level 10+.

Only levies would be made up of mostly 1st level characters, and even then there are a few standout individuals.

[gazza666]

I've never had my armies be made up of entirely 1st level NPC's. In my games the average soldier is 3rd level, captains and such are 5+ level. A unit of elite Knights would run level 10+.
Here's the issue: how much does a 10th level soldier get paid, compared to a 10th level adventuring fighter?

I'm not saying that there are no answers to that sort of question, but it is a poser. An entire unit of archers (say) has a maintenance cost of only 2000gp per season. You're saying that that gets divided amongst 200 3rd level characters, meaning that each 3rd level character gets a 10gp stipend every 3 months. A labourer gets paid 1sp per day of work; assuming a 6 day working week, and 12 weeks a season, that's 72sp per season; not a lot of incentive to join the army, is there?


Only levies would be made up of mostly 1st level characters, and even then there are a few standout individuals.
Note that the DMG gives figures for the distribution of NPC levelled individuals, and that it could not possibly be made to work any way other than the army being made up of 1st level individuals (levies would probably have to be commoners rather than warriors, in fact). Obviously you can use your own tables for that instead, but a statement such as "... only levies would ..." implies authority that cannot be supported by the core rules. In the behind the scenes section of chapter 6 it makes it clear that Birthright does not follow your assumption; the EL equivalence is clearly based on 1st level individuals.

A world where higher levelled individuals are common is fine, but as I said before it may well cause more problems than it solves in terms of justifying income. Certainly adventuring is a hazardous profession, but with a risk to reward ratio so terribly unbalanced in its favour it is hard to credit the idea of even a 3rd level character with no more ambition than to be a front line soldier for a pittance more than an unskilled labourer can make. This is without addressing the mechanics of how one actually gains those levels. Apparently you're using the idea that basic training or the like grants experience; that entails the obvious questions from players: how long does this training take, and where do I apply?

[epicsoul]

Further to the above, this means that the average soldier can whip an entire 1st level adventuring party... or at least give 'em a fair fight. That's one soldier. Yet, these same soldiers, as a unit, are roughly equal to a unit of goblins, which are DEFINITELY CR 1 (or less) creatures.

I don't mind the leaders being a bit higher, but assuming that a unit of elite knights are level 10+, and therefore, EVERY one of them can take on Aeric Boeruine, or Darien Avan in single combat seems a bit much. Seems to me there would be a lot more usurpation going on right now if level 10 was that common.

Sergeants can be about level 2-3, a captain 4-5. Level 6, that magical level where you get leadership feat is almost too much - especially in BR, where you can attract cohorts of war card units. Although, I basically have all merc. companies having someone with level 6 in command at least, to have that feat (or noble 2).

[kgauck]

how much does a 10th level soldier get paid

One possible answer. He's been enfiefed. He has a manor and perhaps 500 souls to provide for his routine upkeep. He taxes them, and so can afford a suite of masterwork armor and weapons. Because most of the pillage in war goes to him and his peers, he can not only afford better upkeep in wartime, but has every incentive to fight. The initial fief is his initial capital investment, capable of supplying good armor, weapons, and horse. From them he parlays his stock into a fortune, if he is capable of it.

So the question of how one induces 10th level fighters into your service is satisfied. What remain then is how many of these figures exist. There are two limits on their number and both are illustritive. One is the number of fiefs one can expect, and therefore the theoretical number of mighty knights. The second is what proportion of the population has reached a level such as that described. Finally one might ask how these two numbers might relate to one another. After all, if there are substantially more fiefs available than fighters of any significant level, we can presume that such enfiefed characters have multiple fiefs. If the situation is reversed, we can assume that only a portion of the mighty warriors in a realm are so easily and cheaply sent off too war.

Suppose Stjordvik has 75,000 people, a number I arrived at using 2e sources, and similar to, though a bit higher than the current BRCS (I've done too much math with old numbers to start again). Suppose I describe the kingdom as three populations of 25,000. There are several good reasons for doing this, including rival power bases in the realm, smoother demographics, and a higher theoretical maximum.

What you find is
3x 15th level warriors
3x 14th level warriors
3x 13th level warriors
3x 8th level warriors
12x 7th level warriors
3x 6th level warriors
18x 4th level warriors
18x 3rd level warriors
36x 2nd level warriors
114x 1st level warriors

A similar number of fighters exist with some slight slippage in levels do to 1d8 vs 2d4 methods of calculation.

So we have 18 characters between say 12th and 15th levels. 18x12 is 216 or more than enough HD to constitute a normal unit. That means Stjordvik can raise one elite warcard unit. Let's make it a named unit of Rjurik Cavalry and improve the regular Rjurik Cavalry by adding a +1 to Charge and a +1 to missile as well as the ability to take 3 hits. About 50 HD could stay home from the elite warcard and we can still field it, so that's quite plausible. We have twice as many characters in the mid-levels. And there are twice as many in the low levels. Lets skip to them first. Counting 1st and 2nd level characters, we have just under 400 hds of them, so lets call that two warcards of basic warmaking. Regular Rjurik Infantry types. They are short of HD, and would require officers, so lets allow for some of the mid-level characters to go there. I'd say 5 per warcard, 4x 3rd level sergeants, and one 7th level captain (in part because of the large number of 7th level characters). That works out to 205 HD per warcard, which is pretty good. That leaves me with 214 HD of mid-level characters from 3rd level to 8th level. Call this a normal unit of Rjurik Housecarls. There is your army. 4 units, everything else would be composed of commoners. Given that we have not counted the number of aristocrats, we can certainly assume a bit of slack for raising a few units of commoners.

Given a population of 75,000, where 7,500 are living in towns and cities, that gives us a rural population of 67,500 divided most efficiently for a theoretical maximum of 135 fiefs. That's enough to give one fief to all characters 3rd level or above, with a few left over for the really high level characters. Or its enough to give three fiefs to most of the characters of 6th level or higher. The right answer probabaly lies between the two. So we can motivate our army as decribed, but we are effectivly prevented from building units. The Players' Secrets for Stjordvik already describes seven units. Roughly half the hit dice in this realm's army must be commoners just to fill out the ranks.

Consider that any deaths suffered are irreplacable except by bidding against other realms for the service of mercenaries, or waiting for new Rjurik to come of age. Consider the implications of having a party of really high levels destroy a unit now. Its basically irreplacable.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

[Fizz]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before (a lot of messages to read) but the big problem here is hit points. In the real world, even the toughest, strongest, most capable soldier in the world can still be killed by a single bullet.

But in D&D 3E, a very high-level warrior may have as many hit points as an adult dragon. He very well may be able to chop through an entire unit, particularly if he has the right feats like Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, etc. Potentially 8 kills a round- only 25 rounds of combat required. Realistically, it'd be more of course, but far fewer than what would be required in 2nd Ed, where even a 20th level specialist would have only 3 attacks per round.

IMO, this is not in keeping with the spirit of BR, at least not from a regent's point of view.

This is not as much a problem in 2nd Ed, because hit points only increased very slowly after 10th level, and there were feats and abilities that enabled the rapid chopping of a large number of foes. 2nd Ed was not built with 10+ level being an ordinary event. Such characters are legends.

So really, i just blame the system. :)

-Fizz

[gazza666]

But in D&D 3E, a very high-level warrior may have as many hit points as an adult dragon. He very well may be able to chop through an entire unit, particularly if he has the right feats like Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, etc. Potentially 8 kills a round- only 25 rounds of combat required.
Feh - you fail your powergaming 101 test. ;) What you should be doing is being Polymorphed into something Huge and using a Spiked Chain... ;)

But yes, you're absolutely right; the removable of the the HD cap in 3rd edition does indeed lead to problems that never existed before. I would hesitate to say this was the only problem, but it's certainly a problem; I would also hesitate to conclude that the ability to annhilate entire army units is something 3rd edition invented.

[ploesch]

I think too many people are in a 2E mindset. In 3E the rules allow very well for NPC leveling. It's true that I may be going a little too far, but it works well for helping to keep PC's n line.

I have to point out, that I was just giving a general overview, but it gave the essense of where I was coming from. Since the units are higher than 1st level, the they naturally are not made up of 200 individuals.

I also didn't express myself well. A green unit wold be mostly 1st-2nd level warriors, A Standard Unit would have 3-4th, and a Veteran unit would be 5-6th, Elite units would be 7+. The commanders would be one or two levels higher than those they command. This does somewhat limit the number of standard and veteran units you can have. I generally don't allow Veteran Units to be mustered, Green units can always be mustered. Then through training, you make them stadard and veteran.

3E allows for training and RolePlaying to increase levels.

In this way the PC's Best men will be better than they are, at least for a while. In the end, there will come a time when A single PC could take on an entire army, but this extends how long that will take.

Don't forget, in 3E everything can take levels, so even goblins could be 3rd level, and they follow the same rules. By using CR's for determining the size of a unit, instead of number of members, you can have an entire unit be one powerful giant, or a unit of veteran archers be 32 6th level archers with a 8th level commander, and that is a CR 20 uinit.

[gazza666]

I think too many people are in a 2E mindset. In 3E the rules allow very well for NPC leveling.
They allow it, yes. They even have rules for showing what the proportion of the population is of level X.

And by these rules, you would probably not be able to get 100 2nd level warriors, let alone 3rd or 4th level, unless you had a massive population to draw on. A large proportion of the population are commoners, and a very large proportion of the population are 1st level.

Of course there's nothing that holds you to this anymore than any other rule, but in my opinion increasing the average levels of NPCs is not the best way to discourage high level PC dominance - YMMV.


3E allows for training and RolePlaying to increase levels.
As house rules. Nothing unique there; even some of the original Gygax modules had unusually competent monsters.

3rd edition invented very little; the main claim to superiority of previous editions is not new material, but much more consistent rules and organisation.



By using CR's for determining the size of a unit, instead of number of members, you can have an entire unit be one powerful giant, or a unit of veteran archers be 32 6th level archers with a 8th level commander, and that is a CR 20 uinit.
Is it your contention that 32 6th level archers and an 8th level commander is more of a challenge? From my perspective, numbers that small could feasibly be taken out with a couple of fireballs.

Functionally, a 20th level character is going to have the same AC against these guys as he will against the 200 1st level archers (ie they'll still need a 20 to hit). With 200 1st level archers the sheer number of rolls means that some precautions are necessary (eg become incorporeal); with only 33 targets, you're no longer in danger of being overwhelmed by sheer numbers and you can just blast away. You could feasibly run out of ammunition (spells, arrows, whatever) when facing 200 targets; 33 targets are unlikely to exhaust your ammunition.

Once you're 8 CRs behind the pace, it doesn't make that much difference if you're 12 or 19 CRs behind - you're still just a speed bump.

Granted a group of 10th level PCs will have trouble with those 6th level archers, but 10th level isn't what I'd term "high".

This is why I don't particularly care for the "solution" of increasing the competence of the NPCs. Firstly, it requires extensive house ruling (you're on your own as far as distribution is concerned - which is a shame, because the tables for distribution in the DMG are quite handy). Secondly, it makes PCs less special (if the average soldier is 3rd level, say) while not explaining why these much more competent individuals are leaving far more lucrative tasks to beginners (the PCs). And thirdly, unless you make the town guards 10th level or higher, it ultimately doesn't make that much difference anyway.

But that's just my opinion; your mileage may certainly vary.

[kgauck]

Does anyone really suppose that just because the rules create the option for characters to climb to 20th level, or because epic levels are part of the design, these are desirable? What does it matter that I can build an overwhelming character with the rules?

The game provides for +5 flaming, holy swords, but I don't have to place them in my game. By the same token, I don't need to place 20th level characters, or CR 12-15 challenges which might produce them.

Simply repeating that 20th level characters are so much more powerful than mid level characters is neither news to anyone, nor is it particularly profound. The question which this thread should address, if it is to usefully consider the problems in the BR setting are how to run a game that doesn't produce 20th level characters, or any other game breaking power that is connected with advancement.

How does one structure a game that pleases the players without the old familiar leveling up as a neccesary reward?
What works for DM's and players to maintain the BR stucture where realms are a meaningful, yet continues to interest players?

[Sigmund]

One could always modify xp awards to slow level progression, like awarding only 50% xp for challenges for example.

[RaspK_FOG]

My preferred method is awarding half the awards for a challenge; note that, whenever you apply a modifier to any XP awards, you should also apply it to treasure gained. If you don't do that, you will get either low-level characters totting artefacts around, or epic characters with walking sticks.

[ploesch]

Simply put gazza, the small elite unit wouldn't be stupid enough to go marching up to the PC's in formation, While a large green unit would.

So yes, a small unit of 6th level archers can harry the PC's 24 hours a day, track them till they sleep, and ambush them, then move off. Forcing the PC's to expend time resources and decimating green and even some standard troops the PC's have before the PC's can organize against them. If they get the PC's to leave the territory, all the better.

Especially in low magic settings the level difference doesn't make as much of a difference, as the PC's aren't as likely to have +5 heavy fortified armor, or bracers of +8 AC they sleep in. So if the concern is that a single PC can decimate an army, don't give them the chance to meet in an open field. If a famous hero/villain is in an area, especially with a war going on all sides will be concerned, and the sade that is facing the PC's will do what they have to.

Having the higher level troops, but smaller units allows for challenging the PC's, but not always having it be an equal group.

Now, if you are purely looking at the effect of PC's on a massive battlefield with thousands on each side, then it isn't much of a stretch to have the opponents with their own group of PC's causing the same type of troubles for the PC's side. The higher level troops still helps them to be a little less suceptible to spells with large area of effects, but that do little damage. Where a unit of 1st level sodiers might die or be routed, a unit of 3rd or 4th would shrug it off.

[epicsoul]

One could always modify xp awards to slow level progression, like awarding only 50% xp for challenges for example.

Which has already been done in my case. But the fact remains, PCs go up levels in 3e WAY faster than 2e.

It's actually why I like the introduction of the noble and the scion class the most - they reduce the overall power of the characters, in regards to high level feats/spells, as they have a few levels already built into them.

[epicsoul]

Simply put gazza, the small elite unit wouldn't be stupid enough to go marching up to the PC's in formation, While a large green unit would.

So yes, a small unit of 6th level archers can harry the PC's 24 hours a day, track them till they sleep, and ambush them, then move off. Forcing the PC's to expend time resources and decimating green and even some standard troops the PC's have before the PC's can organize against them. If they get the PC's to leave the territory, all the better.

Especially in low magic settings the level difference doesn't make as much of a difference, as the PC's aren't as likely to have +5 heavy fortified armor, or bracers of +8 AC they sleep in. So if the concern is that a single PC can decimate an army, don't give them the chance to meet in an open field. If a famous hero/villain is in an area, especially with a war going on all sides will be concerned, and the sade that is facing the PC's will do what they have to.

Having the higher level troops, but smaller units allows for challenging the PC's, but not always having it be an equal group.

Now, if you are purely looking at the effect of PC's on a massive battlefield with thousands on each side, then it isn't much of a stretch to have the opponents with their own group of PC's causing the same type of troubles for the PC's side. The higher level troops still helps them to be a little less suceptible to spells with large area of effects, but that do little damage. Where a unit of 1st level sodiers might die or be routed, a unit of 3rd or 4th would shrug it off.

That's all well and good, but it still means that there is no stand-up field battle. And... well, the minute that the battle does start on the field, the smaller unit gets blasted easier.

Suddenly, you have changed that war card into a full on encounter. While interesting, it actually reduces the effectiveness. I also hesitate to point out that doing so removes another chief point of armies - to OCCUPY the territory they capture. Which does a better job of garrison duty? 200 1st level fighters everywhere, or 32 6th level fighters, that can't see all the rebellious activities?

[gazza666]

To say nothing of the fact that if "hounding" tactics are allowed, then the PCs really shine. Scrying teleporting engines of destruction that always sleep in extradimensional spaces are extremely difficult to out-sneak.

But in any case, as epicsoul points out, we're talking about armies here, not encounters.

The general consensus, even amongst those that don't like high level PCs, is basically that the only counter to high level PCs is other levelled characters - which was, really, the entire point.

[epicsoul]

Does anyone really suppose that just because the rules create the option for characters to climb to 20th level, or because epic levels are part of the design, these are desirable? What does it matter that I can build an overwhelming character with the rules?

The game provides for +5 flaming, holy swords, but I don't have to place them in my game. By the same token, I don't need to place 20th level characters, or CR 12-15 challenges which might produce them.

Simply repeating that 20th level characters are so much more powerful than mid level characters is neither news to anyone, nor is it particularly profound. The question which this thread should address, if it is to usefully consider the problems in the BR setting are how to run a game that doesn't produce 20th level characters, or any other game breaking power that is connected with advancement.

How does one structure a game that pleases the players without the old familiar leveling up as a neccesary reward?
What works for DM's and players to maintain the BR stucture where realms are a meaningful, yet continues to interest players?


As stated above, slow xp progression is a start. Encourage multi-classing, and using scion/noble classes assists.

Perhaps a BR character should be a little less specialized - taking scion/noble allows each character more of a chance to stand on their own, and thus, also multi-classing also helps.

As for a reward system that is advocated more, perhaps BR DOES already have that advantage - bonuses added towards rule checks, or agitate checks, or domain attitude, when needed. Even bonus RP for adventures, to increase bloodline, as the character is now more (in)famous and heroic (villainous). Those rewards are already there, other than the treasure and the xp. No worries there.

[gazza666]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that D&D really simulates low level particularly well.

You can slow the XP rate, encourage multiclassing, and so forth - I'm sure all of those work - but they are, in effect, modifying the game away from D&D. If you're prepared to do that, there are other rulesets that don't have the same ultrahigh fantasy tone of core D&D.

I realise that there is a certain nostalgia attached to D&D and Birthright - after all, the original setting was a gem in the crown of 2nd edition AD&D - but many of these issues would have existed for 2nd edition as well, it's just that hardly anyone got to high levels and the game wasn't really intended to take you there. 3rd edition is a different story; it was designed so that the average campaign could reach 20th level before "restart syndrome", and as such the high level play is much better realised (not necessarily particularly well balanced, but their heart is in the right place). Many players - myself included - are very much attracted to the high end rather than the low end of D&D, and bring expectations that are difficult to satisfy within a setting that suffers a logical breakdown if they ever achieve this.

GURPS would seem to be a pretty good fit for Birthright. Fantasy Hero would also work fairly well. The rules for Basic Roleplaying (ala RuneQuest or Call of Cthulu) would require a bit more work to come up with, but the results would probably be worthwhile. All of these are very much low fantasy settings which seems more appropriate to Birthright.

[epicsoul]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that D&D really simulates low level particularly well.

You can slow the XP rate, encourage multiclassing, and so forth - I'm sure all of those work - but they are, in effect, modifying the game away from D&D. If you're prepared to do that, there are other rulesets that don't have the same ultrahigh fantasy tone of core D&D.

I realise that there is a certain nostalgia attached to D&D and Birthright - after all, the original setting was a gem in the crown of 2nd edition AD&D - but many of these issues would have existed for 2nd edition as well, it's just that hardly anyone got to high levels and the game wasn't really intended to take you there. 3rd edition is a different story; it was designed so that the average campaign could reach 20th level before "restart syndrome", and as such the high level play is much better realised (not necessarily particularly well balanced, but their heart is in the right place). Many players - myself included - are very much attracted to the high end rather than the low end of D&D, and bring expectations that are difficult to satisfy within a setting that suffers a logical breakdown if they ever achieve this.

GURPS would seem to be a pretty good fit for Birthright. Fantasy Hero would also work fairly well. The rules for Basic Roleplaying (ala RuneQuest or Call of Cthulu) would require a bit more work to come up with, but the results would probably be worthwhile. All of these are very much low fantasy settings which seems more appropriate to Birthright.


LOL. As an old school D&D player, it's funny how my knee-jerk response was to answer this, frothing at the mouth, in vehement denial.

However, ultimately, I think I have to agree. Well, on most of what you said. I think D&D's strength is in lower level, not higher level, play. But otherwise, 3e is just not as built for BR as it is for say, Eberron or FR. Even Greyhawk. Mystara would be another one that would fit well for 3e - all high magic games.

Interesting that you state that people just didn't get to higher levels. Very few of the campaigns I played in, or ran, DIDN'T get to high levels, whether in 1e, 2e, basic-thru-master rules, or whatever. However, I understand that for whatever reason, I was in the minority.

What you said I have taken to heart. I think I may return to 2e for my next BR campaign.

[Sigmund]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that D&D really simulates low level particularly well.

You can slow the XP rate, encourage multiclassing, and so forth - I'm sure all of those work - but they are, in effect, modifying the game away from D&D. If you're prepared to do that, there are other rulesets that don't have the same ultrahigh fantasy tone of core D&D.

I realise that there is a certain nostalgia attached to D&D and Birthright - after all, the original setting was a gem in the crown of 2nd edition AD&D - but many of these issues would have existed for 2nd edition as well, it's just that hardly anyone got to high levels and the game wasn't really intended to take you there. 3rd edition is a different story; it was designed so that the average campaign could reach 20th level before "restart syndrome", and as such the high level play is much better realised (not necessarily particularly well balanced, but their heart is in the right place). Many players - myself included - are very much attracted to the high end rather than the low end of D&D, and bring expectations that are difficult to satisfy within a setting that suffers a logical breakdown if they ever achieve this.

GURPS would seem to be a pretty good fit for Birthright. Fantasy Hero would also work fairly well. The rules for Basic Roleplaying (ala RuneQuest or Call of Cthulu) would require a bit more work to come up with, but the results would probably be worthwhile. All of these are very much low fantasy settings which seems more appropriate to Birthright.


I really agree with you here. This is why I am still working on converting Birthright to True20. While it still has levels, the vastly different magic and combat systems serve to flatten out the relative power levels of different characters and lessen the disparity. This is also the reason I proposed a type of Grim and Gritty combat system for BR, because combat is where the higher power levels come into play the most it seems. Because BR is such a fantastic setting, even for those of us who rarely delve into the domain level game, I am willing to put in the effort to translate it. I really want to conserve as much of the flavor as I can though, because it's what attracted me to the setting in the first place. Otherwise, I could make it easy on myself and just use True20 to run Harn instead.

I think, on the subject of keeping BR in the DnD arena, we will have to make some compromises with the new rules in the area of leveling, it's such a part of the system. There are great suggestions for keeping PCs from laying waste to armies and such, but in the end if they really want to we might have to let them. We'll just have to make sure we don't make it that easy, and give 'em a good story we can talk about later :) . After all, why give the Gorgon stats if we ain't gonna let the PCs kick his booty? :D

[gazza666]

LOL. As an old school D&D player, it's funny how my knee-jerk response was to answer this, frothing at the mouth, in vehement denial.
:) D&D provides a common language for roleplayers, and for that its position in every gamer's library is guaranteed. But I do feel that those players who never play anything else are missing out.



Interesting that you state that people just didn't get to higher levels. Very few of the campaigns I played in, or ran, DIDN'T get to high levels, whether in 1e, 2e, basic-thru-master rules, or whatever. However, I understand that for whatever reason, I was in the minority.

It was mostly the glacial rate of advancement. In 1st edition, the majority of your XP came from treasure that you hauled back. A 1st level fighter would need to kill something like 100 or so orcs in order to get to 2nd level based purely on the XP for kills; very few real world boxers have that long a string of undefeated matches.

But the idea that the wealth of monsters made them worth more XP was rightly criticised as silly, so 2nd edition dispensed with this; unfortunately, it didn't replace it with anything better. The optional individual XP rules were broken (clerics would get XP every time they cast a Cure Light Wounds spell, fighters got barely more XP for killing things than anyone else did; rogues got the same XP-for-gp that 1st edition got). If you didn't use any of those options, then you were stuck with the XP for individual kills that was comparable to what it was in 1st edition. Many DMs used story XP and the like to make up the gap (I certainly did).

Once you get past the lower amount of XP that was earned, you then deal with the doubling of XP per level that makes it much harder to reach "name" level. 3rd edition uses the assumption that it takes the same number of adventures to go from 1st to 2nd level as it does to go from 19th to 20th level; 2nd edition may have intended the same assumption, but it was very difficult to pull off in practice.

All that said, I have played some high level 2nd edition games, but in almost all cases it was with characters that we created at high level to begin with (which is still the only way I've played epic characters in 3rd edition, so far). I haven't tended, historically, to stay with the same groups long enough to get to much higher than 10th level or so; that hasn't been the case for the past 6 years or so, though, which coincidentally is also about when 3rd edition came out. My current group is very stable (and we're all devoted powergamers, which means that we don't have any differing expectations to satisfy).

[gazza666]

There are great suggestions for keeping PCs from laying waste to armies and such, but in the end if they really want to we might have to let them. We'll just have to make sure we don't make it that easy, and give 'em a good story we can talk about later :) . After all, why give the Gorgon stats if we ain't gonna let the PCs kick his booty? :D
You're my sort of gamer.

[Sigmund]

You're my sort of gamer.

:cool: I figured as much the first time I read a post of yours. If I may, let me provide a link (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-to-awesome-up-your-players.html) that describes the style of GMing I aspire to.

[epicsoul]

Definitely not my style, you two. I build my characters, as well as encourage my players to build, as lower powered characters so as to prompt more of a challenge. Odd, I know, but once you have had your character advance from 1st level all the way to immortality, then do it again with the same character to try and become an Old One (look it up in the old Immortals rules!) power gaming just kind of loses its charm. You can only conquer so much, I suppose.

Guess I go for the artsy-fartsy now.

Interesting...

[gazza666]

:cool: I figured as much the first time I read a post of yours. If I may, let me provide a link (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-to-awesome-up-your-players.html) that describes the style of GMing I aspire to.
Is that your blog? That's awesome; I'm sending that to everyone I know even as we speak.

[Sigmund]

Is that your blog? That's awesome; I'm sending that to everyone I know even as we speak.

Nope, just a guy who frequents a different board that I also frequent. It is very awesome, cuz in the end it's all about fun really.

[Sigmund]

Definitely not my style, you two. I build my characters, as well as encourage my players to build, as lower powered characters so as to prompt more of a challenge. Odd, I know, but once you have had your character advance from 1st level all the way to immortality, then do it again with the same character to try and become an Old One (look it up in the old Immortals rules!) power gaming just kind of loses its charm. You can only conquer so much, I suppose.

Guess I go for the artsy-fartsy now.

Interesting...

Don't get me wrong, I love lower level campaigns, and the challenges involved. However, I'd like to think that I can challenge my players at high level too. Letting my players rock doesn't mean letting my players walk all over me. Like Jeff's blog says, I give them some things, but I make them half kill themselves for the rest. Actually, it seems to me BR makes a great setting for this style, as the players can start the game with lots of money and already ruling domains. So it's just about figuring out what they want after all that stuff, and giving them a shot at it. We still love great RP and engaging stories, it's just those things are simply tools we use to make epics (hopefully ;) ). I want my players to rule the world someday, but not next week. There's alot to do before then.

[geeman]

At 06:27 PM 10/2/2006, gazza666 wrote:

>To be perfectly honest, I`m not sure that D&D really simulates low
>level particularly well.

That`s interesting. I`ve always had the opposite reaction. That is,
there are games that do a much better job of portraying what is
"high-level" in D&D. It`s at the low- to mid-levels that I find D&D
workable--however briefly that might occur. High-level D&D
characters turn into Batman or Mutant X kind of characters, and there
are superhero systems that do that better than D&D, or D20 for that
matter. (Mutants & Masterminds D20 does a good job at the kind of
"mid-level" of the superhero genre--about the X-men level of character.)

>You can slow the XP rate, encourage multiclassing, and so forth -
>I`m sure all of those work - but they are, in effect, modifying the
>game away from D&D. If you`re prepared to do that, there are other
>rulesets that don`t have the same ultrahigh fantasy tone of core D&D.

In this case, I would be a little more particular. Such rules are
modifying the game away from 3e. D&D`s experience system has had
several different incarnations, and I`m not convinced that 3e`s XP
system is the best it could be or even the best there has been, but I
don`t think that quite calls for an entirely different
system. Changing the amount of XP award in 3e is a very, very minor
tweak. It`s just a change in rate of progression. It`s not even a
shift away from the basic rules set. Nobody has suggested making any
changes to the nature of CR, LE, or the manner in which those awards
are determined. I use a LOT of changes to the basic system
(Vitality/Wound points, an entirely rewritten skill system, many
tweaks to class, and even a change to the basic die roll) so what I
use I wouldn`t necessarily call D&D, and many folks would probably
say it`s not even D20 anymore. I routinely grant between 1/4 and 1/2
the XP that D&D normally assigns. But changing the amount of XP
awards is a pretty small alteration.

There are a lot of things that one might want to change in BR from
D&D in order to make the system more workable in the context of the
setting. Personally, I think a change in the rate of XP awards is
apt for D&D as a whole, not just when using it to play BR. However,
it`s definitely a good idea when playing in this setting. However,
D&D is a much broader rules set than I think a lot of people
assume. It can handle changes that are much more dramatic than a
shift in the amount of XP awarded and still easily fall under the "D&D" banner.

Gary

[Sigmund]

At 06:27 PM 10/2/2006, gazza666 wrote:

>To be perfectly honest, I`m not sure that D&D really simulates low
>level particularly well.

That`s interesting. I`ve always had the opposite reaction. That is,
there are games that do a much better job of portraying what is
"high-level" in D&D. It`s at the low- to mid-levels that I find D&D
workable--however briefly that might occur. High-level D&D
characters turn into Batman or Mutant X kind of characters, and there
are superhero systems that do that better than D&D, or D20 for that
matter. (Mutants & Masterminds D20 does a good job at the kind of
"mid-level" of the superhero genre--about the X-men level of character.)


Gary

My experience has been different. It all depends on individual tastes and what is desired out of the game I think. Our high level game has always been fun. DnD is a little over-the-top, but IMO that's what it's designed for. It's DnD for the video game generation. I don't mind, in that kind of application it works great. However, I have been working on converting BR to True20 exactly becauses IMO BR isn't designed for that kind of campaign. It can be, but I'd rather play it a little lower-key if I can. If it proves too difficult though, I'm just gonna plug in 3.5 and ride it 'til it throws me :) .